Comprehensive Survey of IPv6 Transition Technologies: A Subjective Classification for Security Analysis

Lencse, Gábor; Kadobayashi, Youki

doi:10.1587/transcom.2018ebr0002

Cited by 29 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Initially, the Internet content providers tested the IPv6 for a single day on June 8, 2011, which is called World IPv6 Day. Later, on June 6, 2012, which is called World IPv6 Launch day, IPv6 was permanently enabled [2]. IPv4 address depletion was the main reason for the development of IPv6 in which the IP addresses are 128 bits compared to 32 bits in IPv4.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

IPv6 Transition Measurements in LTE and VHT Wi-Fi Mobile Networks

Mina

2019

IEEE Access

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Full digital connectivity of the Internet of Things (IoT) devices demands several requirements including high-speed networks and a large number of IP addresses. The long term evolution (LTE) and very high throughput (VHT) 802.11ac networks are among the alternatives that can fulfill the speed requirements. To provide a large number of IP addresses, in addition to IPv4, LTE and 802.11ac also support IPv6. However, while the full digital connectivity cannot be fulfilled by IPv4 due to its limited address space and failure to support the scalability of the IoT applications, another major problem is that the potential benefits of IPv6 for LTE and 802.11ac mobile networks are completely ambiguous. The issue is further increased along with the design complexities inherent in LTE and 802.11ac infrastructures. Therefore, there are increasing concerns for cellular carriers and mobile service providers regarding migration to IPv6-only and whether the users in LTE-IPv6-only and 802.11ac-IPv6-only networks can achieve better performance than IPv4. To address the challenges associated with deploying IPv6-only in LTE and 802.11ac networks and quantify the performance, this work proposes a model. The model consists of a simulation environment with four distinct networks: LTE-IPv6-only, LTE-IPv4-only, 802.11ac-IPv6-only, and 802.11ac-IPv4-only. The model is further extended by setting up a real-world testbed environment to include four networks for replication of those simulations. To assure the most comprehensive environmental evaluation of the model, 128 distinct scenarios are developed and implemented, and the results are obtained in terms of quality of service parameters. The testbed results are compared to those of simulations to precisely assess the model. INDEX TERMS LTE, VHT, IPv6, QoS, Internet-of-Things (IoT).

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

IPv6 Transition Measurements in LTE and VHT Wi-Fi Mobile Networks

Mina

2019

IEEE Access

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, the tunnel end-node configuration is minimal [6]. Other tunneling mechanisms can be used such as: an IPv4-compatible automatic IPv6 tunnel [7], 6over4 [8], ISATAP [9], 6rd [9], etc.…”

Section: ) 6to4 Automatic Tunnelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Evaluation of IPv4/IPv6 Transition Mechanisms for Real-Time Applications using OPNET Modeler

Khadiri¹,

Labouidya²,

Elkamoun³

et al. 2018

ijacsa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The problem of the potential depletion of IPv4 addresses has given rise to the development of a new version of the Internet Protocol named IPv6. This version of the protocol offers many improvements, including an increase in the address space from 2 32 to 2 128 and improvements in security, mobility, and quality of service. However, the transition from the current version to the new version (IPv4 to IPv6) is complicated and cannot be performed in a short time. The size and complexity of Internet make this migration task extremely difficult and timeconsuming. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) took into account this migration problem and proposed transition mechanisms as temporary solutions allowing IPv4 to coexist and operate in parallel with IPv6 networks. The dual stack, manual tunnel, and 6to4 automatic tunnel appear to be promising solutions depending on their characteristics and benefits. In this paper, we study the performance of these transition mechanisms on real-time applications (VoIP and Video Conferencing) using the network simulator OPNET Modeler. Performance parameters such as delay, delay variation, jitter, MOS, and packet loss are measured for these transition mechanisms. The obtained results showed that the dual stack transition mechanism gave better network performance than the tunneling mechanisms.

show abstract

“…As for a special usage of authoritative DNS servers, they are needed for benchmarking DNS64 [3] servers. (DNS64 is an important IPv6 transition technology [4], which is used together with stateful NAT64 [5] to enable IPv6-only clients to communicate with IPv4-only servers [6].) In section 9 of RFC 8219 [7], we defined a benchmarking methodology for DNS64 servers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benchmarking Authoritative DNS Servers

Lencse

2020

IEEE Access

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we examine the performance of four authoritative DNS server implementations (BIND, NSD, knot DNS, and YADIFA). In our tests, we apply the measurement procedure defined in Section 9 of RFC 8219. Our aim is threefold: to provide DNS operators with ready to use measurement results to support their selection of the best fitting authoritative DNS server implementation for their needs, to assist researchers and DNS64 server developers in finding a suitable authoritative DNS server implementation for their DNS64 benchmarking measurements, and to advance the theory and practice of benchmarking DNS servers. We examine how the different conditions such as the number of active CPU cores, the size of the zone file, the applied timeout, and the type of the processor influence the performance of the tested authoritative DNS server implementations. The performance of all four tested DNS servers scales up more or less well with the number of CPU cores, except for YADIFA. The increase of the size of the zone file causes significant degradation only in the performance of BIND, which shows different anomalies described in the paper. The change of the timeout from 250ms (required by RFC 8219) to 100ms usually causes only a small performance degradation. We point out that NSD and Knot DNS can achieve an order of magnitude higher performance than BIND and YADIFA.

show abstract

Comprehensive Survey of IPv6 Transition Technologies: A Subjective Classification for Security Analysis

Cited by 29 publications

References 64 publications

IPv6 Transition Measurements in LTE and VHT Wi-Fi Mobile Networks

IPv6 Transition Measurements in LTE and VHT Wi-Fi Mobile Networks

Performance Evaluation of IPv4/IPv6 Transition Mechanisms for Real-Time Applications using OPNET Modeler

Benchmarking Authoritative DNS Servers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About