Network performance evaluation of IPv4-v6 configured tunnel and 6to4 transition mechanisms on windows server operating systems

Narayan, Shaneel; Tauch, Sotharith

doi:10.1109/iccda.2010.5540939

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Web-based applications were implemented by Zander et al [20] to test latency and delay introduced by Teredo and to compare it with 6to4. Narayan and Tauch [21][22] compared 6to4 with configured tunnels, using Windows Server 2003, Windows Server 2008, Ubuntu 11.0, and Fedora 9.10. In a more recent studies, Hadiya, Save, and Geetu [23] also evaluated the performance of 6to4 and configured tunnels in a network infrastructure, while Amr and Abdelbaki [24] compared the routing convergence of 6to4 and configured tunnels versus the conventional IPv4 and IPv6 protocols.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Evaluation of IPv4/IPv6 Transition Mechanisms

Quintero¹,

Sans²,

Gamess

2016

IJCNIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The exhaustion of IPv4 addresses has forced the deployment of the new version of the Internet Protocol (IPv6). However, the migration to the new protocol is done gradually and with the due care for many reasons that include: cost, inclusion of support for IPv6 in existing applications, training of technical staff, lack of web content available over IPv6 from important providers, and obsolete devices not anymore supported by manufacturers. For those reasons, many transition mechanisms have been proposed, each one to fill distinct requirements, with different operational theory and availability according to the network environment. A performance evaluation of these mechanisms can help network administrators and researchers in their selection of the best transition technology for their environment. In this paper, we present a performance comparison of some transition mechanisms such as ISATAP, 6to4, and NAT64 in real testbeds with Debian, Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows 10. For NAT64, two different tools were tested: TAYGA and Jool. We measure the OWD and the throughput for UDP and TCP for every mechanism, for both Ethernet and Fast Ethernet technologies. From this research, we can conclude that all the modern operating systems for PCs already have good support for IPv6, and a very similar network performance. Also, we can infer from our work that in controlled environments, native IPv4 has the best performance, closely followed by native IPv6. The difference is essentially due to the length of the IP header (20 bytes in IPv4 and 40 bytes in IPv6). The tunneling solutions chosen for this research (ISATAP and 6to4) have a similar performance, which is the lowest of the studied technologies, because of the additional IPv4 header in the tunnel.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Evaluation of IPv4/IPv6 Transition Mechanisms

Quintero¹,

Sans²,

Gamess

2016

IJCNIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In [14] and [15] the network performance such as throughput, delay, jitter, and CPU usage of IPv4-v6 Configured Tunnel and 6to4 Transition mechanisms on Linux operating systems and on Windows server operating systems are evaluated.…”

Section: Related Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Analysis of IPv6 Transition Mechanisms over MPLS

Grayeli

Sarkani²,

Mazzuchi³

2022

Int. j. commun. netw. inf. secur.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exhaustion of current version of Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) addresses initiated development of next-generation Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6). IPv6 is acknowledged to provide more address space, better address design, and greater security; however, IPv6 and IPv4 are not fully compatible. For the two protocols to coexist, various IPv6 transition mechanisms have been developed. This research will analyze a series of IPv6 transition mechanisms over the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) backbone using a simulation tool (OPNET) and will evaluate and compare their performances. The analysis will include comparing the end-to-end delay, jitter, and throughput performance metrics using tunneling mechanisms, specifically Manual Tunnel, Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Tunnel, Automatic IPv4-Compatible Tunnel, and 6to4 Tunnel between Customer Edge (CE)-to-CE routers and between Provider Edge (PE)-to-PE routers. The results are then compared against 6PE, Native IPv6, and Dual Stack, all using the MPLS backbone. The traffic generated for this comparison are database access, email, File Transfer, File Print, Telnet, Video Conferencing over IP, Voice over IP, Web Browsing, and Remote Login. A statistical analysis is performed to compare the performance metrics of these mechanisms to evaluate any statistically-significant differences among them. The main objective of this research is to rank the aforementioned IPv6 transition mechanism and identify the superior mechanism(s) that offer lowest delay, lowest jitter, and highest throughput.

show abstract

“…Initially, the deployments of previous researches were to identify constraints that may occur in IPv6. Throughout years, Transition Mechanism (TM) has been inspired in order to ensure a successful integration of IPv6 into an existing network (AlJaafreh et al, 2008;Narayan & Tauch, 2010). As referred to (Waddington & Fangzhe, 2002), TMs are identified into three main categories based on their operation and the way of their implementation: dual stack mechanisms (Durand, 2001;Hirorai & Yoshifuji, 2006), tunneling mechanisms (Vazao et al, 2004;Waddington & Fangzhe, 2002), and translation mechanisms (Grosse & Lakshman, 2003;Kawarasaki et al, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconnaissance Attack on IPv6 to IPv4 Tunneling

Bahama

Prabuwono

Mantoro

2013

International Journal of Mobile Computing and Multimedia Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) is created to occupy the insufficient current Internet addresses. Consequently this significant contribution offers huge number of Internet addresses. Besides, the security also has been improved to challenge today threats in competent on IPv6 network. As alternative, an automatic tunneling was introduced along with other transition mechanisms to ensure smooth implementation on existing network. However, it’s believed that the implementation of automatic tunneling has altered the form of the IPv4 threats. Then the gained information from this mechanism is exploited to attempt the target network. As a concern, this paper thoroughly describes on potential of reconnaissance attack reach through automatic tunneling named 6to4 Tunneling. The preference development tools and networking defense mechanism suite, is setup to conduct proposed attack method under 6to4 tunnel testbed environment. As a result, the attacking method is feasible to attempt and 6to4 tunnel showed their influence on the achievement of DoS attack in current internet.

show abstract

Network performance evaluation of IPv4-v6 configured tunnel and 6to4 transition mechanisms on windows server operating systems

Cited by 14 publications

References 15 publications

Performance Evaluation of IPv4/IPv6 Transition Mechanisms

Performance Evaluation of IPv4/IPv6 Transition Mechanisms

Performance Analysis of IPv6 Transition Mechanisms over MPLS

Reconnaissance Attack on IPv6 to IPv4 Tunneling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About