Fig 1 - uploaded by Zeeshan Ashraf
Content may be subject to copyright.
![IPv6 tunnel over IPv4 IV. HYBRID IPV4-IPV6 NETWORK IPv4 and IPv6 are not compatible with each other. ISPs must provide services in both IPv4/IPv6 network because users can be mixed. Some users are only in IPv4 network, some are in dual-stack and in future, there would be only IPv6 network users [28]. The primary reason for the transition is that the user may need to access data that will only be available in IPv6. There are multiple modes of transition: Dual-Stack](profile/Zeeshan-Ashraf-6/publication/316613297/figure/fig1/AS:490012564299777@1493839507723/IPv6-tunnel-over-IPv4-IV-HYBRID-IPV4-IPV6-NETWORK-IPv4-and-IPv6-are-not-compatible-with.png)
IPv6 tunnel over IPv4 IV. HYBRID IPV4-IPV6 NETWORK IPv4 and IPv6 are not compatible with each other. ISPs must provide services in both IPv4/IPv6 network because users can be mixed. Some users are only in IPv4 network, some are in dual-stack and in future, there would be only IPv6 network users [28]. The primary reason for the transition is that the user may need to access data that will only be available in IPv6. There are multiple modes of transition: Dual-Stack
Source publication
IPv6 is the next generation internet protocol which is gradually replacing the IPv4. IPv6 offers larger address space, simpler header format, efficient routing, better QoS and built-in security mechanisms. The migration from IPv4 to IPv6 cannot be attained in a short span of time. The main issue is compatibility and interoperability between the two...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... routes become external routes into the routing table. In our scenario, there are 15 static routes and 15 loopback interfaces on "Router-1" as it has shown in figure 1 and these routes can be advertised into routing protocol through redistribution. EIGRPv6 and OSPFv3 both support redistribution for IPv4-IPv6. ...
Context 2
... decisions. Figure 1 shows the topology of our network design. Topology consists of four CISCO 7200 series routers connected to each other with serial link with an IPv4 addresses. ...
Context 3
... our experiments, response time is measured for both OSPFv3 and EIGRPv6 over the hybrid IPv4-IPv6 network before and after summarization. Figure 10 shows the average response time for different rounds without summarization. Results are calculated from PC-2 to Loopback-1. ...
Context 4
... show that OSPFv3 has an advantage over EIGRPv6 in this experiment. Figure 11 shows the average response time with summary address over the IPv6 tunnel. CV of EIGRPv6 is 57 ms while CV of OSPFv3 is 72 ms. ...
Context 5
... show that the response time of EIGRPv6 is much better than OSPFv3 with summarization. Figure 12 displays the status of tunnel in OSPFv3 and EIGRPv6 with same time slot (9 mints) on Router-1 before summarization. Statistics show that Router-1 sent 131 packets to its neighbor and received 118 packets through tunnel by using EIGRPv6 while with OSPFv3, it sent only 75 packets and received 65 packets. ...
Context 6
... show that Router-1 sent 131 packets to its neighbor and received 118 packets through tunnel by using EIGRPv6 while with OSPFv3, it sent only 75 packets and received 65 packets. Figure 14 highlights the traffic statistics of EIGRPv6 and OSPFv3 with same time quantum (6 mints) on Router-1 without route summarization. Statistics show that during this time interval EIGRPv6 has sent 144 "Hello" packets and received only 71 Hello packets while OSPFv3 has sent and receive only 33 Hello packets. ...
Context 7
... memory utilization may cause to increase the CPU utilization. Figure 16 shows the comparison of CPU utilization of EIGRPv6 and OSPFv3 without route summarization with same time quantum (2 mints) in hybrid IPv4-IPv6 network. Statistics show that OSPFv3 has better performance of CPU utilization as compared to EIGRPv6. ...
Context 8
... memory" in routers. High memory utilization may cause to increase the CPU utilization. Figure 16 shows the comparison of CPU utilization of EIGRPv6 and OSPFv3 without route summarization with same time quantum (2 mints) in hybrid IPv4-IPv6 network. Statistics show that OSPFv3 has better performance of CPU utilization as compared to EIGRPv6. Fig. 16. CPU Utilization before Summarization Figure 17 shows the comparison of CPU utilization of EIGRPv6 and OSPFv3 after route summarization with same time quantum (2 mints) in hybrid IPv4-IPv6 network. Statistics show that OSPFv3 has better performance of CPU utilization as compared to EIGRPv6. It can be observed that running processes of ...
Context 9
... 16. CPU Utilization before Summarization Figure 17 shows the comparison of CPU utilization of EIGRPv6 and OSPFv3 after route summarization with same time quantum (2 mints) in hybrid IPv4-IPv6 network. Statistics show that OSPFv3 has better performance of CPU utilization as compared to EIGRPv6. ...
Context 10
... can be observed that running processes of OSPFv3 consumed CPU in less time than EIGRPv6. Figure 18 shows the comparison of memory utilization of EIGRPv6 and OSPFv3 without route summarization with same time quantum (2 mints) in hybrid IPv4-IPv6 network. Statistics show that OSPFv3 has better performance of memory utilization as compared to EIGRPv6. ...
Context 11
... be observed that running processes of OSPFv3 consumed CPU in less time than EIGRPv6. Figure 18 shows the comparison of memory utilization of EIGRPv6 and OSPFv3 without route summarization with same time quantum (2 mints) in hybrid IPv4-IPv6 network. Statistics show that OSPFv3 has better performance of memory utilization as compared to EIGRPv6. Fig. 18. Memory Utilization before Summarization www.ijacsa.thesai.org Finally, figure 19 displays the comparison of memory utilization of EIGRPv6 and OSPFv3 after route summarization. Statistics show that OSPFv3 has better performance of memory utilization as compared to EIGRPv6. ...
Similar publications
Internet Protocol (IP) is the narrow waist of multi-layered Internet protocol stack which defines the rules for data sent across networks. IPv4 is the fourth version of IP and first commercially available for deployment set by ARPANET in 1983 which is a 32 bit long address and can support up to 2^32 devices. In April 2017, all Regional Internet Reg...
Internet Protocol (IP) is the narrow waist of multilayered Internet protocol stack which defines the rules for data sent across networks. IPv4 is the fourth version of IP and first commercially available for deployment set by ARPANET in 1983 which is a 32 bit long address and can support up to 232 devices. In April 2017, all Regional Internet Regis...
Citations
... A variety of routing protocols is available for both IPv4 and IPv6 networks. The routing protocols are different from each other in terms of configuration, metrics, convergence speed, and other functionalities [8]. ...
... The performance of IPv6 tunneling protocols is examined by static routing as it is better in the small size of the network, but not feasible in large and complex networks. For larger and complex networks, dynamic routing is best for time-saving [8]. ...
... Researchers examined the performance of IPv6 routing protocols in small and medium sizes of networks through different simulators. Research studies [3,8,11,18,41,49,71] may help ISPs to provide routing services on large-scale next-generation virtualized IP networks. Detailed performance comparisons of the IPv6 routing protocols based on several parameters like convergence, throughput, jitter, packet loss, end-to-end delay, and RTT are displayed in Table 6. ...
The rapid proliferation of the Internet has exhausted Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) addresses offered by the Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA). The new version of the IP i.e. IPv6 was launched by Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) with new features, such as a simpler packet header, larger address space, new anycast addressing type, integrated security, efficient segment routing, and better Quality of Services (QoS). Virtualized network architectures such as Network Function Virtualization (NFV) and Software Defined Network (SDN) have been introduced. These new paradigms have entirely changed the way of internetworking and provide a lot of benefits in multiple domains of applications that have used SDN and NFV. ISPs are trying to move from existing IPv4 physical networks to virtualized next-generation IPv6 networks gradually. The transition from physical IPv4 to software-based IPv6 is very slow due to the usage of IPv4 addresses by billions of devices around the globe. IPv4 and IPv6 protocols are different in format and behavior. Therefore, direct communication between IPv4 and IPv6 is not possible. Both protocols will co-exist for a long time during the transition despite the incompatibility issues. The core issues between IPv4 and IPv6 protocols are compatibility, interoperability, and security. The transition creates many challenges for ISPs during shifting the network toward a software-based IPv6 network. Packet traversing, routing scalability, guarantee of performance, and security are the main challenges faced by ISPs. In this research, we focused on a qualitative and comprehensive survey. We summarize the challenges during the transition process, recommended appropriate solutions, and an in-depth analysis of their mitigations during moving toward the next-generation virtual IPv6 network.
... [6,7] in these paper, the researchers showed the step by step configuration of OSPF and OSPFv3 routing protocols in IPv4 and IPv6 network using (CLI) command line interfaces. [8,9] in which the researchers compared and analyzed the performance of dissimilar routing protocols in hybrid IPv4-IPv6 network based on different criteria. Besides, the researchers evaluated the performance of routing protocols (EIGRP & OSPF) in IPv4 networks, in pure IPv6 networks and in dual-stack networks based on numerous parameters like (RTT, packet loss, throughput, end-to-end delay, convergence time, jitter, CPU and memory utilization) for user traffic. ...
... For network success, protocols for routing play a decisive role. Every day, the Internet expands around the world [4]. ...
A collection of interconnected devices that deal with communication protocols that are common to share resources provided by nodes of a network over digital interconnections is a computer network. The process of determining the most efficient route from a source to a given target is called routing. Cisco's Enriched Internal Routing Gateway Protocol for IPv6 and the IETF's OSPFv3 (First Version 3 of Open Shortest Path) are two of the most frequently studied IPv6 routing protocols among researchers (EIGRPv6). As a result of the popularity of EIGRPv6 and OSPFv3, it is necessary to undertake a thorough contrast of the two protocols once working inside a minor enterprise network on IPv6. Thus, the study analysed the performance comparison of OSPFV3 and EIGRP with IPv6 networks with regards to convergence time, end-to-end delay, and packet loss. Packet Tracer 6.2.2 was used to compare the performance of routing protocols of different kinds. In the simulation, Cisco routers, switches, and generic computers were employed in the test. In these topologies, standard IPv6 addresses have been used. The findings of the study revealed that EIGRPv6 outperforms OSPFv3. As a result, we advocate using EIGRPv6 as an internal routing protocol in a network of IPv6.
... In [22,23], researchers compared the performance of OSPFv3 and EIGRPv6 on the basis of optimization technique, converge times and resources such as CPU utilization, memory utilization, and tunnel overhead used by routers in a small IPv6 enterprise network and hybrid IPv4-IPv6 network respectively with the help of simulators. In [24], the authors highlighted the impact of routing protocols and compared the performance in the Copyright © 2019 MECS I.J. ...
... A kind variety of routing protocols is available for IPv6 networks. IPv6 protocols are different from each other in terms of configuration, metrics, path calculation method, and convergence [23]. ...
... other devices and tries to make adjacency. When the adjacency is completed then EIGRP exchanges complete routing table [23]. After this, only topological changes are sent. ...
The rapid growth of the Internet and a number of changes in the technology landscape have resulted to move traditional IPv4 networks to virtualized IPv6 networks. Reliable and fast delivery of network services with minimum hardware and lower cost are the main challenges for network operators in the modern technological era. Network operators are moving towards the virtual IPv6 networks. As IP protocol does not guarantee packet delivery, therefore, for reliable delivery of services like FTP, HTTP, and SMTP, the IP protocol is associated with TCP on the transport layer while audio/video live streaming, and real-time applications use UDP. QoS of video streaming and real-time applications are depended upon better network resources management and planning while QoE is dependent on network performance. Different sizes of the packet affect overall QoS. Optimum services can be achieved through the proper selection of routing protocol in the network. In this study, the performance of the IPv6 virtual machine connected to the large scale virtual IPv6 network through the cloud is measured and compared on the basis of the packet sizes of TCP and UDP. GNS3 network emulator and VMware have been used for testing and analyzing the performance of the IPv6 virtual network in terms of several parameters such as convergence, RTT, throughput, jitter, and packet loss. Results indicate that the EIGRPv6 routing protocol with the collaboration of BGPv4 delivers better performance through virtual network services over the cloud network.
... These studies did not specifically evaluate the performance of the routing protocols in the hybrid IPv4-IPv6 network. Further very close related works of this paper are [18,21] in which the researchers compared and analyzed the performance of dissimilar routing protocols in hybrid IPv4-IPv6 network based on different criteria. Besides, the researchers evaluated the performance of routing protocols (EIGRP & OSPF) in IPv4 networks, in pure IPv6 networks and in dual-stack networks based on numerous parameters like (RTT, packet loss, throughput, end-to-end delay, convergence time, jitter, CPU and memory utilization) for user traffic. ...
Computer technology is growing quickly. Now a day it is the time of internet. Data communication and networking have changed the way we do business and the personal communication. Communication can easily isolate the world through the way of communication. When we communicate, we are sharing information. A routing mechanism needs to add the entire computer system with a higher degree of facility for a network. Routing is the most important part for giving a performance to the network. Network administrators need to performance evaluation based on different criteria for each type of routing protocols. Interior gateway protocols are EIGRP, OSPF, RIP and IS-IS. This paper focuses on the performance of these prominent routers. We chose only three protocols for IPv6 network. These are EIGRPv6, OSPFv3 and RIPng. These protocols are used in IPv6 network in terms of data transfer rate and converge time. These calculate in specific source to destination at simulation environment of cisco. We use ping command in command promote to verify the network connection. It also shows the real time comparison in different perspective. We get the result to use the simulation software cisco packet tracer.
... When a router receives a routing update, it checks all known paths and modifies its own routing table if need be. EIGRPv6 uses the DUAL algorithm (Diffusion Update Algorithm) to calculate the best paths [35]. ...
Currently, the exponential growth of the Internet and the limitations of IPv4 (the current version of the Internet Protocol) in terms of lack of IP addresses, mobility and security make the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 more and more a necessity. There are even some operators who finished off their IPv4 addresses store and migrated to IPv6. In addition, IPv6 routing protocols have to adapt to facilitate this transition and the deployment of IPv6 as well. Moreover, the selection of the best routing protocol among the available ones is a critical task, which depends on one hand on the network requirements and its deployment and on the other hand on some performance parameters of different applications in real-time. Routing is a process necessary to select the optimal path in order to allow a number of peripherals to communicate with each other even in different networks. That can be done dynamically by using routing protocols, which rely on different algorithms. In this article, we will present a comparative study of dynamic IPv6 routing protocols, namely RIPng (Routing Information Protocol next generation), EIGRPv6 (IPv6 Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol), OSPFv3 (Open Shortest Path First version 3), IS-IS (Intermediate System to Intermediate System), and BGP4+ (IPv6 Border Gateway Protocol version 4). We classified these protocols into two categories and compared them. We described the involved protocols for each case, their operating principles, their routing algorithms, their deployment limits, and the possible configurations as well. This study is not only intended to compare these categories to each other, but also to present and describe for each of them the involved protocols, their operating principles, their deployment limits in order to enlighten and help customers who want to use or deploy the IPv6 to choose the suitable IPv6 routing protocol according to their needs.
... Consequently, the study mentioned that RIP is suitable for small networks (because of its limited use to 15 hops); the reverse of OSPF, which is intended for large network and EIGRP is a robust protocol but functional only on a Cisco material. In addition, the authors Ashrad and Yousaf [10] studied the performance of the two IPv6 routing protocols, OSPFv3 and EIGRPv6, in terms of convergence time, response time, RTT, overhead tunnel, memory usage, and CPU. As results, they found that OSPFv3 gave better performance than EIGRPv6 regarding most of the simulation parameters. ...
IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanisms allow sites/hosts to communicate using similar or different formal stacks. Routing protocols constitute an important part of this interconnection. Most of the research work related to the two axes deals with the problems related to the good configurations of the routing protocols and the optimization of their convergence delay. In this paper, we will study the impact of the interior dynamic routing protocols (RIPv2/RIPng, OSPFv2/OSPFv3, and IS-IS) on the performance of three IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanisms (dual-stack, manual tunnel, and 6to4 automatic tunnel) by using a real-time application of video confer-encing. The study was conducted on the OPNET Modeler network simulator using a number of measurement parameters including delay, delay variation, and packet loss. The results of the simulation showed that the performance of IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanisms varies in the same way but with different values and according to the types of the tested routing protocols.
... In contrast, we are measuring the performance of OSPF in large scale network. In [15], the researchers compared the performance of two routing protocols (OSPFv3 & EIGRPv6) on the basis of different parameters like (convergence speed, tunneling overhead, hello message exchange, RTT and CPU & memory utilization) with IPv6 tunneling protocol (6in4) by using GNS simulator. They examined that the recital of OSPFv3 is superior than EIGRPv6 in most of the parameters. ...
The fast growth of the Internet has resulted in
IPv4 addresses depletion. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are
trying to replace their IPv4 networks with IPv6 gradually. IPv6
was launched with new features like simpler header format,
larger address space, efficient routing and built-in security.
IPv4-IPv6 transition process has been slow therefore both
versions of IP are expected to co-exist for some time. As IPv4
and IPv6 are not compatible to each other, therefore packet
traversing and routing has to face challenges. Tunneling is a
temporary solution which is used to resolve packet traversing.
This research presents the behavioral analysis of Open Shortest
Path First (OSPFv3) through several IPv6 tunneling protocols
(6in4, 6to4, ISATAP & GRE) over large scale IPv4 network. The
performance of OSPFv3 is measured through route
summarization over hybrid IPv4-IPv6 network on the basis of
numerous parameters like convergence & re-convergence time,
round trip time, response time, tunnel overhead and protocol
traffic statistics.
This article provides an overview of the evolution of metamaterials (MTM) and all the aspects related to metamaterial development for antenna applications. It will be a useful collection of information for antenna researchers working in metamaterials applications. It gives an insight into the various metamaterial structures utilized along with miniature antenna designs. Different types of design parameters studied by the previous researchers are showcased to understand better perception of the metamaterial usage.
