comparative study of ipv6 over ipv4

8/10/2019 Comparative Study of IPv6 Over IPv4

1/5

Comparative Study of IPv6 over IPv4And Deployment Challenges

Mr. Sudhakar Mishra ,Department of Information e!hnology

"al!hand College of #ngineering Sangli ,IndiaSudhakar.mishra$%al!handsangli.a!.in

A&stra!tIPv6 is no% enter the door of internet andsoon %ill &e!ome ne't (en IP proto!ol.IPv6

has many added and modified featured fromIPv4.he impa!t of IPv6 on internet %ill &e

far %ide, %hi!h should &e studied %ell.)efore deploying IPv6, one should kno%%hat IPv6 is going to offer %hi!h IPv4 la!k or

not at all. his Paper !ompare &oth IPproto!ol on various platform to !he!k pro and

!ons .Also, paper dis!ussed the various

Deployment Challenges for IPv6.*ey%ords+ IPv4, IPv6, Internet

I. Introdu!tion

"ith the advan!ement of te!hnology, Internet

is in!reasing day &y day. In order to do!ommuni!ation over internet IPv4 %as

proposed to give a uniue addressing for ea!h

node on internet .)ut -imitation of IPv4determines its fate that the internet supported

&y it %ill &e repla!ed &y the ne% proto!ol!alled IPv6.IPv6 is simply the upgraded

version of IPv4, and makes all the attempts to

over!ome the dra%&a!k of the previous 4

version of Internet Proto!ol /0. IPv6 proto!ol%hi!h %ill repla!e IPv4 in near future is ama1or &oost to net%ork te!hnology as it has

many good ualities %hi!h IPv4 la!ks. o

&etter understand the IPv6, it is very mu!hne!essary to understand differen!es &et%een

IPv6 and IPv4. IPv6 is yet under e'perimentalstage .2nderstanding of its improvement over

IPv4 %ill !lear the various !on!ept and

furnish the &ase for more refinement inIPv6 .his paper takes a !omparative

approa!h to study the level of performan!e ofIPv6 and IPv4.)y !arefully surveying the

different resear!h paper %hi!h fo!used someuniue reuirement and !ompared &oth IP

proto!ol, his paper present the gist of all

surveys done for readers. he rest of the paperis organi3ed as follo%s Se!tion II dis!usses

some of similar %ork undertaken &y otherresear!hers in evaluating performan!e of IP

Proto!ol. Se!tion III des!ri&es performan!e

analysis )oth IP5s mainly fo!using someimportant domain .Se!tion I give a

differen!e ta&le %hi!h give a glan!e look atdifferen!es in &oth IP proto!ol. hen %e

dis!uss the deployment !hallenges of IPv6 in

Se!tion . 7inally, !on!lusions from thesurvey are dra%n in Se!tion I.

II. AnalysisA. Se!urity

IPv6 se!urity is a large and !omple' su&1e!t.

he amount of attention that IPv6 se!urity hasso far re!eived is uite lo% and ne%

!onsiderations %ill !ertainly &e un!overed."ithout adeuate training and attention on the

part of net%ork operators to the ne%

!onsiderations %ith Ipv6 se!urity, it %ill &every diffi!ult to ensure a smooth transition to

IPv6 890. he default su&net si3e of an IPv6su&net is 64 &its or / 64 as !ompared to most

!ommon su&net si3e in IPv4 of : &its or /:.

his in!reases the s!an si3e to !he!k ea!hhost on a su&net &y / ;64 < /:. IPv4 offers

IPSe! support, &ut it is optional. Support forIPSe! in IPv6 implementations is not an

option &ut a reuirement. )e!ause IPv6

mandates the in!lusion of IP Se!urity =IPSe!>,it has often &een stated that IPv6 is more

se!ure than Ipv4.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/5

). ?perating Systems 8@, 88, 860

Internet is a u&iuitous part of &usinesses andindividuals %orld%ide. "ith its popularity on

an in!line, operating system vendors are

developing end thateventually %ill repla!e Ipv4 .Performan!e ofthe IP sta!k and ho% it asso!iates %ith

operating systems is !riti!al to the effi!ien!y

of all net%ork related a!tivities on any!omputing infrastru!ture. en!e it is essential

to evaluate performan!e of IP sta!k %ithdifferent operating systems.7or small pa!ket

si3es, performan!e differen!e &et%een IPv4

and IPv6 is lo%er than theoreti!al value ofappro'imately [email protected]. )oth "indo%s P and

Server /@@B have throughput differen!e ofappro'imately E evident for &oth CP and

2DP traffi! [email protected] large pa!ket si3es, IPv4

and IPv6 performan!e differen!e is higherthan the theoreti!al value of 8.B. CP traffi!

on "indo%s Server /@@B sho%s a differen!eof [email protected] and 2DP traffi! on "indo%s P

sho%s 8/ 880.In "indo%, Performan!e of

Ipv4 and IPv6 various %ith pa!ket si3e andhas mu!h diversity over range of pa!ket si3e

!onforming a sinusoidal graph ofthroughput.FedhatG.@ implementation of the

IPv6 proto!ol sta!k has overall good

performan!e under -oop )a!k test &ed. heperforman!e of IPv6 %ith 7ree)SD4.G

deserves the ne't higher overall performan!e."indo%s/@@B has !omparatively poor

performan!e under -oop )a!k test &ed 860.

C. Mo&ility

Mo&ile IP is used to maintain

!ommuni!ations %hile the IP address is

!hanging. Mo&ile IPv6 is mu!h optimi3ed anddeploya&le than Mo&ile IPv4, like dire!t

!ommuni!ation &et%een the !orrespondentnode and mo&ile devi!e, even though Mo&ile

IPv6 is still un!ompleted the issues have

&een %ith the se!urity of the proto!ol. hemo&ility pro&lem %as taken into a!!ount

%hen the IPv6 proto!ol %as &eing designed,

so the mo&ility support is not an e'ternalpat!h, &ut it is integrated in the proto!ol. #a!h

foreign agent reuires a pool of dire!tions,

%hat means shortage of addresses. IPv6 doesnot reuire 7oreign Agent =7A>, as the mo&ile

node, %ith the auto !onfiguration me!hanismof IPv6, is a&le to get an addressing the

foreign net%ork %ithout any e'ternal help.

Hriangle routing of IPv4 is ineffi!ient=Correspondent node al%ays sends pa!kets to

A, not dire!tly to the mo&ile node>. IPv6avoids the triangle routing =!orrespondent

node sends pa!kets dire!tly to the mo&ile

node> %ith the route optimi3ationme!hanism.IPv4 uses en!apsulation for the

delivery of pa!kets. In IPv6 the delivery is

reali3ed &y the Fouting eader. he ne%me!hanism redu!es overhead. Pro&lems %ith

the fire%alls avoided. (eneration of ane'!essive signalling is no longer needed. he

handoff time, %hi!h deteriorates the!ommuni!ation, is redu!ed.

D. Juality of Servi!e =JoS>

he uality of servi!e is integrated in IPv6, asthere are / fields in the &ase header %hose goal

is to ensure a !ertain JoS. hese fields are the

traffi! !lass, %hi!h su&stitutes the type ofservi!e =?S> field of IPv4, and the flo% la&el,

and %ith them it is possi&le to give the pa!ketsa !ertain !hara!teristi! under the point of vie%

of the JoS. Pa!ket loss, throughput, delay,

1itter and response time of Ipv6 is mu!h &etterthan Ipv4 and in!rease gradually %ith volume

of traffi! /0 in IPv6 .

he goals to a!hieve &y the uality of servi!eme!hanisms are+

Feal time appli!ations

-ess laten!y and H1itter.

More toleran!e to pa!ket losses

Fetransmissions are less important

More importan!e of the temporal

relationships


3/5

III. IPv6 DeploymentChallenges

Fesour!es availa&le over IPv6 are not

rea!ha&le from an IPv4 node and vi!e

versa Customer is least interested in IPv6.

e doesnKt %ant to make anyinvestment in ne% hard%areLSoft%are

infrastru!ture. Customer asks for

servi!es and !ontent, not &other a&outproto!ol used.

Person need to &e trained to handle

issue !oming %hile implementingIpv6 lega!y has restri!ted large

deployment, slo% and !ontinuous

deployment is only possi&le.

Many !riti!s has raised some serious

se!urity !on!ern many of %hi!h yet to&e resolve

I. Con!lusion-ater &ut soon, Ipv6 is the future of

internet .-iterature revie%, resear!h paper aresho%ing that Ipv6 and superiority over IPv4.

Ipv6 is providing solution to many pro&lems

%hi!h %as fa!ed in IPv6. et, there are manyaspe!ts %hi!h need to &e !onsidered and

e'amine &efore Ipv6 &e!ome the full fledgevehi!le for driving internet traffi!.

Deployment of Ipv6 is also a &ig !hallenge as

it has to go through many o&sta!les fromte!hni!al to so!ial aspe!t of adaptation &y end

user.


4/5

. Feferen!es

8> Savita Shi%ani and (.N. Purohit , H IPv4 Compared to IPv6 Net%orks for Fe!ital Analysisin ?MNeOO #nvironment , (lo&al ournal of Computer S!ien!e and e!hnology

Net%ork, "e& Q Se!urity ,olume 8B Issue 88 ersion 8.@ ear /@8B .

/> 7ya3a Nada , H Performan!e Analysis of Mo&ile Ipv4 and Mo&ile Ipv6 , in he

International Ara& 1ournal of information te!hnology , ol. 4 ,No. / ,April /@@9 .

B> Saaidal Fa3alli )in A33uhri and *. Daniel "ong ,H#na&ling Mo&ility in IPv6Net%orks ,Malaysia 2niversity of S!ien!e and e!hnology, Malaysia ,/@@G .

4> Mon1ur Ahmed, Alan -it!hfield, and Shakil Ahmed , HoIP Performan!e Analysis overIPv4 and Ipv6 , Pu&lished in M#CS I.. Computer Net%ork and Information Se!urity,

/@84, 88, 4B Dey, S and Shilpa, N. Issues in IPv4 to IPv6 Migration. International ournal of Computer

Appli!ations in #ngineering S!ien!es, /@88. 8=8>+ p. G Shaneel Narayan, Samad S. *olahi, onathan Sunarto, Du D. . Nguyen and Paul Mani ,HPerforman!e Comparison of IPv4 and IPv6 on arious "indo%s ?perating Systems

,Pro!eedings of 88th International Conferen!e on Computer and Information e!hnology

/@@:, )angladesh

Appendi!es

a&le 8. Differen!e &et%een MIPv6 and MIPv4 8:0

*ey 7eatures Mo&ile IPv4 Mo&ile IPv6

Spe!ial router as foreign agent es No

Support for route optimi3ation Part of the

proto!ol

In

#'tensions

#nsure symmetri! rea!h a&ility &et%een mo&ilenodes and its router at !urrent lo!ation

No es

Fouting &and%idth overhead More -ess

De!ouple from -ink -ayer No es

Need to manage unnel soft state es No

Dynami! home agent address dis!overy No es


5/5

a&le /. IPv4 and IPv6 Differen!e a&le

IPv4 IPv6

Addresses are B/ &it length. Addresses are 8/: &it length.

Addresses are num&ers represented in

de!imals.

Addresses are num&ers represented in

he'ade!imals.

IPSe! support is only optional. In&uilt IPSe! support.7ragmentations done &y sender and

for%arding routers.7ragmentations done only &y sender.

No pa!ket flo% identifi!ation.Pa!ket flo% identifi!ation is availa&le %ithin the

IPv6 header using the 7lo% -a&el field.

Che!ksum field is availa&le in IPv4 header No !he!ksum field in IPv6 header.

?ptions fields are availa&le in IPv4 header.No option fields, &ut IPv6 #'tension headers are

availa&le.

Address Fesolution Proto!ol =AFP> isavaila&le to map IPv4 addresses to MAC

addresses.

Address Fesolution Proto!ol =AFP>is repla!ed%ith a fun!tion of Neigh&our Dis!overy Proto!ol

=NDP>.

Internet (roup Management Proto!ol =I(MP>is used to manage multi!ast group

mem&ership.

I(MP is repla!ed %ith Multi!ast -istener

Dis!overy =M-D> messages.

I. )road!ast messages are availa&le.

II. )road!ast messages are notavaila&le. Instead a link is used for

&road!ast similar fun!tionality.

Manual !onfiguration =Stati!> of IPv4addresses or DCP =Dynami! !onfiguration>

is reuired to !onfigure IPv4 addresses.

Auto

comparative study of ipv6 over ipv4

Documents