Performance Analysis of Routing Protocols On IPv4 and IPv6 Addressing Networks
With IPv4 addresses being exhausted, network engineers and researchers are encouraged to adopt IPv6. But before using the IPv6 network directly, engineers need to test their hardware and network performance under new conditions of IPv6 as it has an extended address, high complexity, overhead performance, and IPsec complications. As routing protocols play a crucial role in network performance, it leads to a network’s extended performance by finding the shortest path, good throughput, and lowest delay. As the specifications, viz. frame structure for IPv4 and IPv6 are entirely different, there are modified routing protocols specified for IPv6. Routing Information Protocol (RIP) and Routing Information Protocol Next Generation (RIPng) are distance vector routing protocols and use hop count as a cost. In this paper, we have used RIPng on the IPv6 addressing network and RIP on the IPv4 addressing network and then analyze and compare them on the basis of different performance parameters. For this comparison, three different applications – File Transfer Protocol (FTP), DB Query (DataBase), and electronic mail (e-mail) – are set on a network consisting of three different subnets, each having a diverse network topology. The performance parameters analyzed are global and object statistics, viz. ethernet delay, number of hops, applications response time, background traffic delay, traffic dropped, point-to-point links throughput, links utilization, and links queuing delay. The experimental results determine the strength of the routing protocols. Thus, the quantitative results give the option to choose the routing protocol according to the network scenarios. In terms of ethernet delay, traffic dropped, network convergence, and security, it is found that the RIPng_IPv6 network performs better than RIP_IPv4. RIPng_IPv6 has an ethernet delay of 2.9 milliseconds, traffic dropped of 0.29 packets/second, and network convergence of 17 seconds less than RIP_IPv4 values. However, the RIP_IPv4 network is scalable, uses less hop, and has 40 milliseconds of traffic delay, while RIPng_IPv6 has 0.40 seconds of traffic delay. RIP_IPv4 also has a better response time for all three applications, FTP as 100 milliseconds, DB as 40 milliseconds, and e-mail as 20 milliseconds which is much less than the values obtained for RIPng_IPv6 network. Therefore, according to the performance requirements, the network engineers/operators or researchers can use either the existing IPv4 network or a new IPv6 network to achieve the Quality of Service (QoS) target level.
R. Hinden and S. Deering, “RFC 3513-Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture,” Netw. Work. Gr. http//www. faqs. org/rfcs/rfc3513. html, 2003.
S. M. Kerner, “Last of the IPv4 Addresses Allocatede.” .
O. Babatunde and O. Al-Debagy, “A comparative review of internet protocol version 4 (ipv4) and internet protocol version 6 (ipv6),” arXiv Prepr. arXiv1407.2717, 2014.
J.-J. Kester, “Comparing the Accuracy of IPv4 and IPv6 Geolocation Databases,” Methodology, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 12–17, 2016.
"IPv4 vs IPv6 performance Comparasion.” [Online]. Available: https://blog.sucuri.net/2016/11/ipv4-vs-ipv6-performance-comparison-part-2.html. .
M. A. Mohammed, A. F. Degadzor, and M. Asante, “Performance Analysis of Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP) Over Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Protocol with Opnet,” 2016.
W.-X. Wang, C.-Y. Yin, G. Yan, and B.-H. Wang, “Integrating local static and dynamic information for routing traffic,” Phys. Rev. E, vol. 74, no. 1, p. 16101, 2006.
M. Waqas, S. U. R. Malik, S. Akbar, A. Anjum, and N. Ahmad, “Convergence time analysis of OSPF routing protocol using social network metrics,” Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst., vol. 94, pp. 62–71, May 2019.
G. K. Dey, M. M. Ahmed, and K. T. Ahmmed, “Performance analysis and redistribution among RIPv2, EIGRP & OSPF Routing Protocol,” in 1st International Conference on Computer and Information Engineering, ICCIE 2015, 2016, pp. 21–24.
S. A. Alabady, S. Hazim, and A. Amer Mohammed Salih, “Performance evaluation and comparison of dynamic routing protocols for suitability and reliability,” Int. J. Grid Distrib. Comput., vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 41–52, 2018.
N. Jain and A. Payal, “Comparison Between IPv4 and IPv6 using OSPF and OSPFv3 on Riverbed Modeler,” in IEEE International Conference on Advanced Networks and Telecommunications Systems (ANTS), 2019.
N. Jain and A. Payal, “Performance Evaluation of IPv6 Network for Real-Time Applications using IS-ISv6 Routing Protocol on Riverbed Modeler,” in Procedia Computer Science, 2020.
G. Malkin and R. Minnear, “Ripng for ipv6,” 1996.
G. Malkin, “RIP version 2,” 1998.
P. Wei, Z. Hong, and M. Shi, “Performance analysis of HTTP and FTP based on OPNET,” in 2016 IEEE/ACIS 15th International Conference on Computer and Information Science (ICIS), 2016, pp. 1–4.
K. E. KHADIRI, O. LABOUIDYA, N. ELKAMOUN, and R. HILAL, “Comparative Study Between Dynamic IPv6 Routing Protocols of Distance Vectors and Link States,” in 2018 6th International Conference on Wireless Networks and Mobile Communications (WINCOM), 2018, pp. 1–6.
B. Clore, M. Dunlop, R. Marchany, and J. Tront, “An evaluation of IPv6 in simulation using OPNET modeler,” in Proc. of the 8th Advanced International Conference on Telecommunications, 2012, pp. 111–115.
I. Fictiguau and G. Toderean, “Network performance evaluation for RIP, OSPF and EIGRP routing protocols,” in Electronics, Computers and Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), 2013 International Conference on, 2013, pp. 1–4.
A. Iqbal and S. L. A. Khan, “Performance Evaluation of Real Time Applications for RIP, OSPF and EIGRP for flapping links using OPNET Modeler,” Int. J. Comput. Networks Commun. Secur., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 16–26, 2015.
M. Syed and I. Y. Ambore, “Performance evaluation of OSPF and RIP on IPv4 and IPv6 technology using G. 711 Codec,” Int. J. Comput. Networks Commun.(IJCNC), vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 1–15, 2016.
S. ShewayeSirika, “Performance Evaluation of Dynamic Routing Protocols for Real time application,” Int. J. Eng. Trends Technol. (IJETT)--Volume, vol. 32, 2016.
S. S. Samaan, “Performance evaluation of RIPng, EIGRPv6 and OSPFv3 for real time applications,” J. Eng., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 111–122, 2018.
M. M. H. Sabbir, M. T. Islam, S. Z. Rashid, A. Gafur, and M. H. Kabir, “An Approach to Performance and Qualitative Analysis of Routing Protocols on IPv6,” in 2019 International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Communication Engineering (ECCE), 2019, pp. 1–6.
I. Nedyalkov, A. Stefanov, and P. Apostolov, “Modeling of the convergence time of an IP-based network with different traffic loads,” in IEEE EUROCON 2019-18th International Conference on Smart Technologies, 2019, pp. 1–6.
I. Nedyalkov, “Studying of a Modeled IP – Based Network Using Different Dynamic Routing Protocols,” in 2019 X National Conference with International Participation (ELECTRONICA), 2019, pp. 1–4.
M. N. Ismail and A. M. Zin, “Emulation network analyzer development for campus environment and comparison between OPNET Application and Hardware Network Analyzer‖,” Eur. J. Sci. Res. ISSN, pp. 270–291, 2008.
M. Sharma, M. Kumar, and A. K. Sharma, “HTTP and FTP Statistics for Wireless and Wire-Line Network with and without Load Balance Based on OPNET,” Int. J. Inf. Syst. Sci. Inst. Sci. Comput. Information, Canada, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 112–125, 2009.
X. Tan, Z. Zuo, S. Su, X. Guo, X. Sun, and D. Jiang, “Performance Analysis of Routing Protocols for UAV Communication Networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 92212–92224, 2020.
F. Yakubu and B. I. Ahmad, “Traffic Flows Modeling of a Digital Center at ABU Using OPNET Software.”
P. Rukmani and R. Ganesan, “Scheduling algorithm for real time applications in mobile ad hoc network with opnet modeler,” in Procedia Engineering, 2013, vol. 64, pp. 94–103.
O. Galinina, A. Pyattaev, S. Andreev, M. Dohler, and Y. Koucheryavy, “5G multi-RAT LTE-WiFi ultra-dense small cells: Performance dynamics, architecture, and trends,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1224–1240, 2015.