Performance Evaluation of IPv4/IPv6 Transition Mechanisms
Performance Evaluation of IPv4/IPv6 Transition Mechanisms
复制标题
IPv4/IPv6过渡机制的性能评估
DOI：
10.5815/ijcnis.2016.02.01
复制
发表时间：
2016
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Eric Gamess
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Quintero;F. Sans;Eric Gamess
IPv4地址的耗尽迫使新版本互联网协议（IPv6）的部署。然而，向新协议的迁移是逐步进行的，并且出于多种原因应有的谨慎，其中包括：成本、现有应用程序中对 IPv6 的支持、技术人员的培训、重要提供商缺乏通过 IPv6 提供的 Web 内容以及制造商不再支持的过时设备。由于这些原因，人们提出了许多转换机制，每一种转换机制都满足不同的要求，根据网络环境具有不同的操作理论和可用性。对这些机制的性能评估可以帮助网络管理员和研究人员选择适合其环境的最佳过渡技术。在本文中，我们对 Debian、Windows 7、Windows 8 和 Windows 10 的实际测试平台中的一些转换机制（例如 ISATAP、6to4 和 NAT64）进行了性能比较。对于 NAT64，测试了两种不同的工具：TAYGA 和 Jool。我们测量以太网和快速以太网技术的每种机制的 OWD 以及 UDP 和 TCP 的吞吐量。从这项研究中，我们可以得出结论，所有现代 PC 操作系统都已经对 IPv6 提供了良好的支持，并且网络性能非常相似。此外，我们可以从我们的工作中推断出，在受控环境中，本机 IPv4 具有最佳性能，紧随其后的是本机 IPv6。差异本质上是由于 IP 标头的长度造成的（IPv4 中为 20 字节，IPv6 中为 40 字节）。本研究选择的隧道解决方案（ISATAP 和 6to4）具有相似的性能，但由于隧道中存在额外的 IPv4 标头，因此是所研究技术中最低的。
The exhaustion of IPv4 addresses has forced the deployment of the new version of the Internet Protocol (IPv6). However, the migration to the new protocol is done gradually and with the due care for many reasons that include: cost, inclusion of support for IPv6 in existing applications, training of technical staff, lack of web content available over IPv6 from important providers, and obsolete devices not anymore supported by manufacturers. For those reasons, many transition mechanisms have been proposed, each one to fill distinct requirements, with different operational theory and availability according to the network environment. A performance evaluation of these mechanisms can help network administrators and researchers in their selection of the best transition technology for their environment. In this paper, we present a performance comparison of some transition mechanisms such as ISATAP, 6to4, and NAT64 in real testbeds with Debian, Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows 10. For NAT64, two different tools were tested: TAYGA and Jool. We measure the OWD and the throughput for UDP and TCP for every mechanism, for both Ethernet and Fast Ethernet technologies. From this research, we can conclude that all the modern operating systems for PCs already have good support for IPv6, and a very similar network performance. Also, we can infer from our work that in controlled environments, native IPv4 has the best performance, closely followed by native IPv6. The difference is essentially due to the length of the IP header (20 bytes in IPv4 and 40 bytes in IPv6). The tunneling solutions chosen for this research (ISATAP and 6to4) have a similar performance, which is the lowest of the studied technologies, because of the additional IPv4 header in the tunnel.