Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance Comparison Between Different Tunneling Techniques Using Different Routing Protocols

  • Published:
Wireless Personal Communications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Migration to IPv6 becomes a priority with the draining of IPv4 addresses. But both IPv4 and IPv6 have different structures, and directly bringing IPv6 into the current IPv4 network does not work due to their compatibility issues. Therefore, Dual-Stack, Tunneling, and Protocol Translator mechanisms are adopted to smooth the transition between IPv4 and IPv6 networks. The transitions allow us to communicate between both IPv4 and IPv6 networks together despite having their different structures. The proper transition mechanism has to be adopted for a complex network, and the in-depth study and analysis can help find the best transition technique. In this paper, the 6to4 tunneling is configured for a real-time network using real-time applications- FTP and Email, and the performance of the transition between IPv4 and IPv6 addressing networks is evaluated. For analysis, the automatic and manual 6to4 tunneling is configured simultaneously with Routing Information Protocol/Routing Information Protocol next generation and Open Shortest Path First/Open Shortest Path First version 3 routing protocols. The networks are configured and simulated on the Riverbed Modeler Academic Edition 17.5. These cases are analyzed and compared for global performance parameters as traffic dropped, network convergence duration, and traffic sent. The object performance parameters for point-to-point connections are analyzed as queuing delay and throughput for incoming and outgoing traffic. This novel work is helpful for researchers as it gives a detailed study to choose the appropriate tunneling technique with a mixture of proper routing protocols for efficient performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30
Fig. 31
Fig. 32
Fig. 33
Fig. 34
Fig. 35

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gu, D., et al. (2020). Modeling IPv6 adoption from biological evolution. Comput Commun, 158, 166–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith, L., Jacobi, M., and Al-Khayatt, S., “Evaluation of IPv6 transition mechanisms using QoS service policies,” in 2018 11th International symposium on communication systems, networks digital signal processing (CSNDSP), 2018, pp. 1–5.

  3. Hamarsheh, A., and AbdAlaziz, Y. “Transition to IPv6 protocol, Where we are?,” in 2019 International Conference on Computer and Information Sciences (ICCIS), 2019, pp. 1–6

  4. Doering, G., SpaceNet, A. G., Kumari, W., Huston, G., and Liu, W. “IPv6 operations working group (v6ops) F. Gont internet-draft SI6 networks intended status: Informational N. Hilliard Expires: December 13, 2021 INEX,” 2021.

  5. Albkerat, A. and Issac, B. “Analysis of IPv6 transition technologies,” arXiv Prepr. arXiv1410.2013, 2014.

  6. “IPv6-Google.” [Online]. Available: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption.

  7. Colitti, L., Di Battista, G., & Patrignani, M. (2004). IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel discovery: Methods and experimental results. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 1(1), 30–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Omae, O. (2011) “IPV4 to IPV6-transition and benefits,” Sustain Res Innov Proc. 3.

  9. Kao, Y., Liu, J., Ke, Y., Tsai, S., & Lin, Y. (2020). Dual-stack network management through one-time authentication mechanism. IEEE Access, 8, 34706–34716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chauhan, D., Jain, J. K., and Sharma, S. (2016) “An end-to-end header compression for multihop IPv6 tunnels with varying bandwidth,” in 2016 Fifth international conference on eco-friendly computing and communication systems (ICECCS), 2016, pp. 84–88.

  11. Manimozhi, S. and Jayanthi, J. G. (2019) Performance study of IPv6/IPv4 MANET (64MANET) architecture, in International conference on artificial intelligence, smart grid and smart city applications, 2019, pp. 645–658.

  12. Naagas, M. A., Macabale, N. A., Jr., & Palaoag, T. D. (2020). IPv6 campus transition: A central Luzon state university case study. Bull Electr Eng Informatics, 9(3), 1167–1175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. El Khadiri, K., Labouidya, O., Elkamoun, N., & Hilal, R. (2018) Performance evaluation of IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanisms for real-time applications using OPNET modeler. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science & Applications, 9(4), 387–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wu, P., Cui, Y., Wu, J., Liu, J., & Metz, C. (2012). Transition from IPv4 to IPv6: A state-of-the-art survey. IEEE Commun Surv. Tutorials, 15(3), 1407–1424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Risdianto, A. C., and Rumani, R. (2011) “IPv6 Tunnel broker implementation and analysis for IPv6 and IPv4 interconnection,” in 2011 6th International conference on telecommunication systems, services, and applications (TSSA), pp. 139–144.

  16. Curran, J. (2008) “An Internet transition plan”.

  17. Suarez, J., Salcedo, M., Carmona, C., Ramirez, J., & Serna, G. (2016). Effects of IPv6-IPv4 tunnel in Jitter of Voice over IPv6, measured in laboratory and over the National research and education network of Colombia ‘RENATA.’ IEEE Latin America Transactions, 14(3), 1380–1386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Partola, I. (2013) Popular IPv6 tunnel brokers. Linux Journal, 2013(231), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Boansi, O. K., & Asante, M. A comparative performance analysis of 6to4 transition mechanism over MPLS and frame relay using OPNET. International Journal of Computer Applications, 975, 8887.

  20. Sookun, Y., & Bassoo, V. (2016). Performance analysis of IPv4/IPv6 transition techniques. IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Innovative Business Practices for the Transformation of Societies (EmergiTech), 2016, 188–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Khannah, B. and Alsadeh, A. (2017) Impact of IPv4/IPv6 transition techniques on applications performance.

  22. Suleiman, M. F. and Cordry, J. (2017) “Analysis of organizations IPv6 deployment strategies in Nigeria and evaluating suitable transition mechanisms,” in 2017 IEEE 2nd Advanced Information Technology, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (IAEAC), pp. 695–704.

  23. Quintero, A., Sans, F., & Gamess, E. (2016). Performance evaluation of IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanisms. Int J Comput Netw Inf Secur, 8(2), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Chuangchunsong, N., Kamolphiwong, S., Kamolphiwong, T., Elz, R., & Pongpaibool, P. (2014). Performance evaluation of IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanisms: IPv4-in-IPv6 tunneling techniques. The International Conference on Information Networking, 2014(ICOIN2014), 238–243.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Carpenter, B., & Moore, K. (2001). Connection of IPv6 domains via IPv4 clouds. RFC 3056.

  26. Kaptur, V., & Kviatkovsky, A. (2017). Estimating of the preparedness level of telecommunications operators for the introduction of IPv6 in the own networks. International Conference on Information and Telecommunication Technologies and Radio Electronics (UkrMiCo), 2017, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ahmed, A., Mustafa, A., & Ibrahim, G. (2015). Performance evaluation of IPv4 Vs Ipv6 and tunnelling techniques using optimized network engineering tools (OPNET). IOSR J. Comput. Eng., 17(1), 72–75.

    Google Scholar 

  28. “IPv6 Implementation Guide, Cisco IOS XE Release 3S.” [Online]. Available: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/ipv6/configuration/xe-3s/ipv6-xe-36s-book/ip6-tunnel.html.

  29. Shah, J. L., and Parvez, J. (2014) “Performance evaluation of applications in manual 6in4 tunneling and native IPv6/IPv4 environments,” in 2014 International conference on control, instrumentation, communication and computational technologies (ICCICCT), pp. 782–786.

  30. Dawadi, B. R., Rawat, D. B., Joshi, S. R., Manzoni, P., & Keitsch, M. M. (2021). Migration cost optimization for service provider legacy network migration to software-defined IPv6 network. Int J Netw Manag, 31(4), e2145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bahnasse, A., Bensalah, F., Louhab, F. E., Khiat, A., Khiat, Y., & Talea, M. (2019). Automation of network simulation: Concepts related to IPv4 and IPv6 convergence. Procedia Comput. Sci., 155, 456–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Peter, T., Pavol, H., and Lukáš, D., (2016) Implementation and evaluation of IPv6 to IPv4 transition mechanisms in network simulator 3, in 2016 International conference on systems, signals and image processing (IWSSIP), pp. 1–4.

  33. Liao, W., Gu, J., Gu, X., Wu, D. and Guo, C. (2016) Future network deployment strategy based on user behavior analysis and stochastic geometry, in Network Infrastructure and Digital Content (IC-NIDC), 2016 IEEE International Conference on, pp. 56–61

  34. Wu, Y. and Zhou, X. (2011) Research on the IPv6 performance analysis based on dual-protocol stack and tunnel transition, in 2011 6th International Conference on Computer Science Education (ICCSE), pp. 1091–1093.

  35. Ali, M. S., & Yahiya, T. A. (2018). Performance Analysis of Native Ipv4/Ipv6 Networks Compared to 6to4 Tunnelling Mechanism. International Conference on Advanced Science and Engineering (ICOASE), 2018, 250–255.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Yang, Y., Wei, Z., and Hong, B. (2018) Research on IPv6 transition technology for digital ocean in 2018 IEEE 4th International Conference on Computer and Communications (ICCC), pp. 317–320.

  37. Rezaei, S., & Hemmatyar, A. M. A. (2017). General study of jitter mechanisms for metric-based wireless routing protocols. AEU - Int. J. Electron. Commun., 79, 132–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Idrissi, D. E. L., Elkamoun, N., and Hilal, R. (2019) Study of the impact of failure on GRE Tunnel, in 2019 7th Mediterranean Congress of Telecommunications (CMT), pp. 1–4.

  39. Conta, A., Deering, S., & others (1998). Generic packet tunneling in IPv6 specification. RFC 2473.

  40. “Tunneling.” [Online]. Available: https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_2.3.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r3.hale001/ipv6d0121009120.htm.

  41. Jain, N., Payal, A., and Jain, A. (2021) Analysis of link failures and recoveries on 6 to 4 tunneling network with different routing protocol. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 1–27.

  42. Templin, F., Gleeson, T., Talwar, M., and Thaler, D. (2008) Intra-Site automatic tunnel addressing protocol (ISATAP)", RFC 5214.

  43. O. M. A. Edition, “Riverbed technology,” Inc (2018). http://www.riverbed.com.

  44. Jain, N., Payal, A., & Jain, A. (2021). Effect of data packet size on the performance of RIP and OSPF routing protocols in hybrid networks. International Journal of Pervasive Computing and Communications, 17(4), 361–376.

  45. Salam, A., & M. A. Khan, M. A. (2016). Performance analysis of VoIP over IPV4, IPv6 and 6-to-4 Tunneling Networks, Int J Comput Sci Inf Secur. U6-ctx_ver= Z 39

  46. Altangerel, G., Tsogbaatar, E., & Yamkhin, D. (2016). Performance analysis on IPv6 transition technologies and transition method, in 2016 11th International forum on strategic technology (IFOST), pp. 465–469.

  47. Tomić, D., Martinović, G., & Čuljak, A. (2017). Comparison of QoS influence to VoIP traffic into native and tunnel mode IPv6 networks. International Conference on Smart Systems and Technologies (SST), 2017, 109–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Khudhair, E. H., & Mohammed, I. J. (2017). Research article A prototype and roadmap for transition to IPv6 with performance evaluation. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 14(8), 299–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Zardari, Z. A., Ali, M., Shah, R. A., & Zardari, L. H. (2018). A hybrid technique for tunneling mechanism of IPv6 using Teredo and 6RD to enhance the network performance. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 9(11), 100–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. El Khadiri, K., Labouidya, O., El Kamoun, N., and Hilal, R. (2018) Study of the impact of routing on the performance of IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanisms, in International conference on advanced information technology, services and systems, pp. 43–51.

  51. El Khadiri, K., Labouidya, O., Elkamoun, N., & Hilal, R. (2018). Performance analysis of video conferencing over various IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanisms. IJCSNS, 18(7), 83–88.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ashraf, Z. and Yousaf, M. (2018) Optimized convergence of OSPFv3 in large scale hybrid IPv4-IPv6 network in 2018 14th International Conference on Emerging Technologies (ICET), 2018, pp. 1–6.

  53. Babar, A. K., Zardari, Z. A., Sirajuddin Qureshi, S. H., & Hussaini, N. N. (2019). Assessment of IPv4 and IPv6 Networks with Different Modified Tunneling Techniques using OPNET. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science & Applications, 10(9), 476–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Li, K.-H., & Wong, K.-Y. (2021). Empirical analysis of IPv4 and IPv6 networks through dual-stack sites. Information, 12(6), 246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Jain, N., Payal, A., & Jain, A. (2021). Performance analysis of routing protocols on IPv4 and IPv6 addressing networks. J Web Eng., 20(5), 1327–1366.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Jain, N., and Payal, A. (2020) Performance evaluation of IPv6 network for real-time applications using IS-ISv6 routing protocol on Riverbed Modeler, in Procedia Computer Science.

  57. Jain, N. and Payal, A. (2019) Comparison between IPv4 and IPv6 using OSPF and OSPFv3 on riverbed modeler, in 2019 IEEE International conference on advanced networks and telecommunications systems (ANTS), 2019, pp. 1--7

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi, India, under the Indraprastha Research Fellowship No.182.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. GGSIPU, New Delhi, India

    Neha Jain & Ashish Payal

Authors
  1. Neha Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ashish Payal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neha Jain.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jain, N., Payal, A. Performance Comparison Between Different Tunneling Techniques Using Different Routing Protocols. Wireless Pers Commun 123, 1395–1441 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-021-09186-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-021-09186-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation