Empirical Analysis of IPv6 Transition Technologies Using the IPv6 Network Evaluation Testbed

  • Marius Georgescu
  • Hiroaki Hazeyama
  • Youki Kadobayashi
  • Suguru Yamaguchi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 137)

Abstract

IPv6 is yet to become more than a worthy successor of IPv4, which remains, for now, the dominant Internet Protocol. Behind this fact is the complicated transition period through which the Internet will have to go, until IPv6 will completely replace IPv4. This transition has presented the Internet Community with numerous challenges. One of these challenges is to decide which transition technology is more feasible for a particular network scenario. As an answer, this article is proposing the IPv6 Network Evaluation Testbed (IPv6NET), a research project whose ultimate goal is to obtain feasibility data in order to formulate a coherent, scenario-based IPv6 transition strategy. The paper presents the overview of IPv6NET, the testing methodology and empirical results for a specific network scenario. The scenario was introduced by the IETF and it was dedicated to an Enterprise Network which is using IPv6 as backbone technology. The Enterprise needs to convey communication tjo IPv4 capable nodes through the IPv6-only infrastructure. A suitable IPv6 transition implementation, covering multiple transition technologies, was tested in relation with this scenario. The presented empirical feasibility data includes network performance data such as: latency, throughput, packet loss, CPU load, and operational capability data, such as: configuration, troubleshooting and applications capability.

Keywords

IPv6 transition IETF IPv6 scenario 464 scenario Enterprise Networks IPv6NET Asamap MAPe MAPt DSLite 464XLAT 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arkko, J., Keranen, A.: Experiences from an IPv6-Only Network. RFC 6586 (Informational) (April 2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Babiker, H., Nikolova, I., Chittimaneni, K.K.: Deploying ipv6 in the google enterprise network lessons learned. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Large Installation System Administration, LISA 2011, p. 10. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Botta, A., Dainotti, A., Pescapè, A.: A tool for the generation of realistic network workload for emerging networking scenarios. Computer Networks 56(15), 3531–3547 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bound, J.: IPv6 Enterprise Network Scenarios. RFC 4057 (Informational) (June 2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bradner, S. McQuaid, J.: Benchmarking methodology for network interconnect devices (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., Lee, Y.: Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion. RFC 6333 (Proposed Standard) (August 2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grayeli, P., Sarkani, S., Mazzuchi, T.: Performance analysis of ipv6 transition mechanisms over mpls. International Journal of Communication Networks and Information Security 4(2) (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harrington, D.: Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions. RFC 5706 (Informational) (November 2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hazeyama, H., Hiromi, R., Ishihara, T., Nakamura, O.: Experiences from IPv6-Only Networks with Transition Technologies in the WIDE Camp Spring 2012. draft-hazeyama-widecamp-ipv6-only-experience-01.txt (March 2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hazeyama, H., Hiromi, R., Ishihara, T., Nakamura, O.: Experiences from IPv6-Only Networks with Transition Technologies in the WIDE Camp Spring 2012. draft-hazeyama-widecamp-ipv6-only-experience-01.txt (March 2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., Byrne, C.: 464XLAT: Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation. RFC 6877 (April 2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Narayan, S., Shang, P., Fan, N.: Network performance evaluation of internet protocols ipv4 and ipv6 on operating systems. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Wireless and Optical Communications Networks, WOCN 2009, pp. 242–246. IEEE Press, Piscataway (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., Dugatkin, D.: Ipv6 benchmarking methodology for network interconnect devices (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sasanus, S., Kaemarungsi, K.: Differences in bandwidth requirements of various applications due to ipv6 migration. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Network 2012, ICOIN 2012, pp. 462–467. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Troan, O., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S., Murakami, T., Taylor, T.: Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP). draft-ietf-softwire-map-08 (August 2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marius Georgescu
    • 1
  • Hiroaki Hazeyama
    • 1
  • Youki Kadobayashi
    • 1
  • Suguru Yamaguchi
    • 1
  1. 1.Nara Institute of Science and TechnologyNaraJapan

Personalised recommendations