Performance Evaluation of IPv4 and IPv6 on Windows Vista and Linux Ubuntu

Narayan, Shaneel; Shang, Peng; Fan, Na

doi:10.1109/nswctc.2009.368

Cited by 21 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…by more than 10%; the range of our confidence interval. If performance is comparable, then one can reasonably assume that neither (S) nor (D) contribute substantially to differences between IPv6 and IPv4 (poor IPv6 data plane performance could arguably be offset by better server performance, but besides low odds for this to be consistently true across sites/servers in an AS, most server benchmarking data [8,9] point to IPv6 server performance at best similar to that of IPv4).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing IPv6 through web access a measurement study and its findings

Nikkhah

Guérin

Lee

et al. 2011

Proceedings of the Seventh COnference on Emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transitioning an infrastructure the size of the Internet is no small feat. We are in the midst of such a transition, i.e., from IPv4 to IPv6. IPv6 was standardized 15 years ago, but until recently there were few incentives to adopt it. The allocation of the last large block of IPv4 addresses changed that, and migrating to an IPv6 Internet has become more urgent. This migration is, however, still rife with uncertainties and challenges. The goal of this paper is to provide insight into this transition, and possibly make it smoother. The focus is on the "network," and the paper reports on extensive measurements that compare and contrast IPv6 and IPv4. Two important hypotheses, denoted as H1 and H2, were identified and validated. H1 argues that the IPv6 and IPv4 data planes now perform by and large comparably. In contrast, H2 points to routing differences as the primary culprit behind occurrences of poorer IPv6 performance. In other words, promoting IPv6 and IPv4 peering parity is probably the single most effective step towards equal IPv6 and IPv4 performance

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing IPv6 through web access a measurement study and its findings

Nikkhah

Guérin

Lee

et al. 2011

Proceedings of the Seventh COnference on Emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They compared the performance of various operating systems with this upper bound. Narayan, Shang, and Fan [7][8] studied the performance of IPv4 and IPv6 traffic on various distributions of Windows and Linux for TCP and UDP. A similar study was conducted by Kolahi et al [9], where the TCP throughput of Windows Vista and Windows XP was compared using IPv4 and IPv6.…”

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

“…Other studies have focused on quantifying adoption across Autonomous Systems (ASes) [15], [39], among end-users [16], and in Operating Systems (OSes) [8], [21]. Performance issues in OSes have been explored in [34], [49], while investigations aimed at end-to-end performance have compared IPv4 and IPv6 using metrics such as path delay and packet loss [47], [50]. On the modeling front, many studies have sought to formulate the IPv6 adoption question in the context of an economic framework, in an attempt to capture the many interacting factors affecting it [14], [18], [35], [42].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[49]. Performance, however, improved over time across all operating systems, e.g., [34] showed in 2009 that IPv6 and IPv4 performance were on par in Microsoft Windows Vista and in Linux Ubuntu. As of today, IPv6 is available in nearly all operating systems [24] (Windows Phone 8 added support for IPv6 in 2011, and Android with its Lollipop release) with few if any remaining performance problems [21].…”

Section: ) Itdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Migrating the Internet to IPv6: An Exploration of the When and Why

Nikkhah

Guérin

2016

IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper documents and to some extent elucidates the progress of IPv6 across major Internet stakeholders since its introduction in the mid 90's. IPv6 offered an early solution to a well-understood and welldocumented problem IPv4 was expected to encounter. In spite of early standardization and awareness of the issue, the Internet's march to IPv6 has been anything but smooth, even if recent data point to an improvement. The paper documents this progression for several key Internet stakeholders using available measurement data, and identifies changes in the IPv6 ecosystem that may be in part responsible for how it has unfolded. The paper also develops a stylized model of IPv6 adoption across those stakeholders, and validates its qualitative predictive ability by comparing it to measurement data. Abstract-The paper documents and to some extent elucidates the progress of IPv6 across major Internet stakeholders since its introduction in the mid 90's. IPv6 offered an early solution to a well-understood and well-documented problem IPv4 was expected to encounter. In spite of early standardization and awareness of the issue, the Internet's march to IPv6 has been anything but smooth, even if recent data point to an improvement. The paper documents this progression for several key Internet stakeholders using available measurement data, and identifies changes in the IPv6 ecosystem that may be in part responsible for how it has unfolded. The paper also develops a stylized model of IPv6 adoption across those stakeholders, and validates its qualitative predictive ability by comparing it to measurement data.

show abstract

Performance Evaluation of IPv4 and IPv6 on Windows Vista and Linux Ubuntu

Cited by 21 publications

References 6 publications

Assessing IPv6 through web access a measurement study and its findings

Assessing IPv6 through web access a measurement study and its findings

Performance Evaluation of IPv4/IPv6 Transition Mechanisms

Migrating the Internet to IPv6: An Exploration of the When and Why

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About