VoIP Performance Analysis over IPv4 and IPv6

Abstract-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.

show abstract

“…For example, the authors of [35] worked with OPNET IT Guru to investigate areas of performance weakness in VoIP.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Evaluation of IPv4/IPv6 Transition Mechanisms

Quintero¹,

Sans²,

Gamess

2016

IJCNIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The performance of VoIP over IPv4 and IPv6 was simulated in [47] using the OPNET modeller. The experiment was conducted using the G.711 codec with no tunnelling protocol employed.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

VoIP Codec Performance Evaluation on GRE with IPsec over IPv4 and IPv6

Alausa¹,

Arekete²,

Odim³

et al. 2021

Adv. sci. technol. eng. syst. j.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientists succeeded in implementing conventional public switch telephone network (PSTN) into internet protocol by launching H.323 IP telephony. The irrelevant and unknown captions in H.323, computer scientists have replaced H.323 by Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Voice-over-IP (VoIP). However, the security of voice communication over IP is still a major concern. Besides, security and performance contradict features. VoIP exhibits a quality-of-service requirements that are sensitive to time. Example of such QoS requirements are delay, jitter, and packet loss. Integrating Internet Protocol Security (IPsec) with Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) encrypts and authenticate packets from the sender to receiver, but that raises the question of performance as VoIP is time sensitive. Consequently, three codecs were evaluated to determine the efficiency of each on GRE and IPsec implementation on Internet Protocol version 4 and Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv4 and IPv6), respectively. The topology design and device configuration in this study adopted Graphic Network Simulator 3 (GNS3) and Distributed Internet Traffic Generator (D-ITG) to generate VoIP traffic. The evaluation revealed that the G.723.1 codec achieved better results on IPv4 and IPv6 over GRE with IPsec than other codecs used in the experiment. Furthermore, the codec of choice is a major factor in IPsec VoIP deployment, as also revealed in this study.

show abstract

“…Basically, this research was done using IPv6 technology. Ahmed et al [27] looked at the performance of VoIP in IPv4 and IPV6 environments. They critically analysed the result as they compared the performance.…”

Section: Che and Cobleymentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2016

IJCNC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Migration from IPv4 to IPv6 is still visibly slow, mainly because of the inherent cost involved in the implementation, hardware and software acquisition. However, there are many values IPv6 can bring to the IP enabled environment as compared to IPv4, particularly for Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) solutions. Many companies are drifting away from circuit based switching such as PSTN to packet based switching (VoIP) for collaboration. There are several factors determining the effective utilization and quality of VoIP solutions. These include the choice of codec, echo control, packet loss, delay, delay variation (jitter), and the network topology. The network is basically the environment in which VoIP is deployed. State of art network design for VoIP technologies requires impeccable Interior Gateway routing protocols that will reduce the convergence time of the network, in the event of a link failure. Choice of CODEC is also a main factor. Since most research work in this area did not consider a particular CODEC as a factor in determining performance, this paper will compare the behaviour of RIP and OSPF in IPv4 and IPv6 using G.711 CODEC with riverbed modeller17.5.

show abstract

VoIP Performance Analysis over IPv4 and IPv6

Cited by 7 publications

References 10 publications

Performance Evaluation of IPv4/IPv6 Transition Mechanisms

Performance Evaluation of IPv4/IPv6 Transition Mechanisms

VoIP Codec Performance Evaluation on GRE with IPsec over IPv4 and IPv6

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About