Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conceptual model for comparison of IPv6 ISPs based on IPv4 traffic profiles

  • Original Research
  • Published:
International Journal of Information Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The slow adoption of IPv6 protocol by organizations has led to internet service providers (ISP) investing minimal resources in setting up IPv6 Internet connectivity, ultimately resulting in sub optimally tuned IPv6 Internet routing fabric. The altogether different IPv6 packet header with more bits for the IP address, no header checksum, and no intermediate fragmentation features, are expected to give a palpably different experience to the users. With different levels of expertise and different connectivity links to the Internet, available with different ISPs, responses of the destined networks may also vary for each ISP. Therefore, it is worth to investigate ISP wise IPv6 Internet responses from an organization user’s point of view. In this paper, we present a research methodology to estimate IPv6 responses to the users of an organization for destinations present in current IPv4 traffic profile, without actually accessing the IPv6 network. We use publicly available centre for applied internet data analysis (CAIDA) IPv6 topology and autonomous systems (AS) links datasets to analyse and infer the intermediate AS level responses, for estimating responses between source and destination networks. As a case study, we take three Indian ISPs and apply the methodology to compare ISP wise responses for a network of about 2000 nodes. The results of the same are presented in this paper. We conclude that considering all other factors to be the same, the best possible quality of experience (QoE) for the Internet users of the organization, can be achieved by smart selection of the IPv6 ISP.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cerf V, Kahn RE (1978) A protocol for packet network inter-communication. IEEE Trans Commun 22(5):637–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Deering S, Hinden R (2017) Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification. RFC 8200. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc8200.txt

  3. Erevelles S, Srinivasan S, Rangel S (2003) Consumer satisfaction for internet service providers: an analysis of underlying processes. Inf Technol Manag 4:69–89. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021828517151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Radif Al-khafaji AA, Balik HH (2018) A comparative study on IPV4 and IPV6. Int J Adv Res 6(4):1073–1083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cooper A, Gont F, Thaler D (2016) Security and privacy considerations for IPv6 address generation mechanisms. RFC 7721. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc7721.txt

  6. Chittimaneni K et al (2016) Enterprise IPv6 deployment guidelines. RFC 7381. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc7381.txt

  7. Tomar SS, Rawat A, Vyavahare PD, Tokekar S (2017) Study on QoS gains in migration from IPv4 to IPv6 internet. Int J Inf Technol Comput Sci (IJITCS) 9(5):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  8. Huston G (2019) Exploring autonomous system numbers. Internet Protoc J 9(1) [Online]. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/press/internet-protocol-journal/back-issues/table-contents-12/autonomous-system-numbers.html. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

  9. Rekhtar Y et al (2006) A border gateway protocol 4 (BGP-4). RFC 4271. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4271.txt

  10. Durand J et al (2015) BGP operations and security. RFC 7454. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc7454.txt

  11. Archipelago (Ark) Measurement Infrastructure (2007) Centre for Applied Internet Data Analysis [Online]. https://www.caida.org/projects/ark/. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

  12. Centre for Applied Internet Data Analysis (1997) [Online]. https://www.caida.org. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

  13. The CAIDA UCSD [The IPv6 Routed /48 Topology Dataset]—[July and August 2018]. https://www.caida.org/data/active/ipv6_routed_48_topology_dataset.xml

  14. The CAIDA UCSD [The IPv6 AS Links Dataset]—[July and August 2018]. https://www.caida.org/data/active/ipv6_aslinks_dataset.xml

  15. Postel J (1981) Internet control message protocol. RFC 792. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc792.txt

  16. Luckie M, Hyun Y, Huffaker B (2008) Traceroute probe method and forward IP path inference. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement (IMC '08). ACM, New York, pp 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1145/1452520.1452557

  17. Understanding the Ping and Traceroute Commands [Online]. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ios-nx-os-software/ios-software-releases-121-mainline/12778-ping-traceroute.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

  18. Voigt-Antons J, Hoβfeld T, Egger-Lampl S, Schatz R, Möller S (2018) User experience of web browsing—the relationship of usability and quality of experience. In: 2018 tenth international conference on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), Cagliari, pp 1–3

  19. Chen Y, Wu K, Zhang Q (2015) From QoS to QoE: a tutorial on video quality assessment. In: IEEE communications surveys & tutorials, Secondquarter 2015, vol 17, no 2, pp 1126–1165

  20. Wu P, Cui Y, Wu J, Liu J (2012) Transition from IPv4 to IPv6: a state-of-the-art survey. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 15(3):1407–1424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. CIDR Repor [Online]. https://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

  22. Paxson V et al (1998) An architecture for large-scale internet measurement. IEEE Commun Mag 36:48–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. LiQ, Mills DL (1998) On the long-range dependence of packet round-trip delays in Internet. In: ICC '98. 1998 IEEE international conference on communications. Conference Record, vol 2. Affiliated with SUPERCOMM'98 (Cat. No.98CH36220), Atlanta, pp 1185–1191

  24. Adams A et al (2000) The use of end-to-end multicast measurements for characterizing internal network behavior. IEEE Commun Mag 38:152–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhang B, Ng TSE, Nandi A, Riedi RH, Druschel P, Wang G (2010) Measurement-based analysis, modeling, and synthesis of the internet delay space. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 18(1):229–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Traceroute Looking Glass Website (1998) [Online]. https://www.traceroute.org/. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

  27. Traceroute/Ping Looking Glass Website (1998) [Online]. https://www.ultratools.com/tools/lookingGlassTools. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

  28. Augustin B, Cuvellier X, Orgogozo B, Viger F, Friedman T, Latapy M, Magnien C, Teixeira R (2006) Avoiding traceroute anomalies with Paris traceroute. In: Proc. ACM IMC '06

  29. Vermeulen K, Strowes SD, Fourmaux O, Friedman T (2018) Multilevel MDA-Lite Paris traceroute. In: Proceedings of the internet measurement conference 2018 (IMC '18). ACM, New York, pp 29–42

  30. University of Oregon Route Views Project [Online]. https://www.routeviews.org/routeviews/. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

  31. BGPMon [Online]. https://www.bgpmon.io/. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

  32. PeeringDB [Online]. https://www.peeringdb.com/. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

  33. Ahmad M, Guha R (2010) Understanding the impact of internet exchange points on internet topology and routing performance. 10.1145/1921206.1921226

  34. Jia Q, Xie R, Huang T, Liu J, Liu Y (2017) The collaboration for content delivery and network infrastructures: a survey. IEEE Access 5:18088–18106. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2715824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Internet Exchange Point Datasets, Packet Clearing House [Online]. https://www.pch.net/ixp/data. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

  36. ChiY-J, Oliveira R, Zhang L (2008) Cyclops: the internet AS-level observatory. In: ACM SIGCOMM computer communication review

  37. Hakimi R, Saputra YM, Nugraha B (2016) Case study analysis on BGP: prefix hijacking and transit AS. In: 2016 10th international conference on telecommunication systems services and applications (TSSA), Denpasar, pp 1–8. 10.1109/TSSA.2016.7871109

  38. RIPE Routing Information Service [Online]. https://www.ripe.net/analyse/internet-measurements/routing-information-service-ris. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

  39. Internet2 Network [Online]. https://www.internet2.edu/. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

  40. Cisco Express Forwarding Overview (2014) [Online]. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/12_2/switch/configuration/guide/fswtch_c/xcfcef.html. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

  41. Squid: Optimising Web Delivery [Online]. https://www.squid-cache.org/. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

  42. Maxmind GeoIP Databases & Services [Online]. https://www.maxmind.com/en/geoip2-services-and-databases. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

  43. DIG Lnix man page [Online]. https://linux.die.net/man/1/dig. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

  44. CAIDA Data Server: Index of /datasets/topology/ark/ipv6/probe-data/2018/08 [Online]. https://data.caida.org/datasets/topology/ark/ipv6/probe-data/2018/08. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

  45. CAIDA Data Server: Index of /datasets/topology/ark/ipv6/as-links/2018/08 [Online]. https://data.caida.org/datasets/topology/ark/ipv6/as-links/2018/08. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

  46. Elasticsearch [Online]. https://www.elastic.co/. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

  47. Logstash [Online]. https://www.elastic.co/products/logstash. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

  48. Ruby Programming Language [Online]. https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/. Accessed 12 Jan 2019

Download references

Acknowledgements

We hereby acknowledge the support of CAIDA team in providing public access to the data sets of the archipelago project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Division, Raja Ramanna Centre for Advanced Technology, PO CAT, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, 452013, India

    Shailendra Singh Tomar

  2. Technology Development and Support Group, Raja Ramanna Centre for Advanced Technology, PO CAT, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, 452013, India

    Anil Rawat

  3. Department of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering, Shri Govindram Seksaria Institute of Technology and Science, 23 Sir M. Visvesvaraya Marg, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, 452003, India

    Prakash D. Vyavahare

  4. Department of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering, Institute of Engineering and Technology, Devi AhilyaVishwa Vidyalaya, Khandwa Road, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, 452017, India

    Sanjiv Tokekar

Authors
  1. Shailendra Singh Tomar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anil Rawat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Prakash D. Vyavahare
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sanjiv Tokekar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shailendra Singh Tomar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tomar, S.S., Rawat, A., Vyavahare, P.D. et al. Conceptual model for comparison of IPv6 ISPs based on IPv4 traffic profiles. Int. j. inf. tecnol. 12, 1171–1182 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41870-020-00453-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41870-020-00453-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation