[ijct-v1i2p2] author :vahid ghoreish

8/10/2019 [IJCT-V1I2P2] Author :Vahid Ghoreish

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ijct-v1i2p2-author-vahid-ghoreish 1/6

International Journal of Computer Techniques - Volume1 Issue 2 Dec - 2014

ISSN :2394 -2231 http://ijctjournal.org

Comparing the Performance of Real-Time

Applications based on IPv4 and IPv6 Networks

Vahid Ghoreishi1, Shahram Mohammadi2

MSc graduate1, Assistant professor2

Department of electrical and electronic engineeringUniversity of Zanjan

Zanjan, Iran

Abstract—With the expansion of Internet, the current protocol

address space (IPv4) is faced with a shortage and the new

generation Internet (IPv6) is raised in order to solve this problem.

Also with increasing interest of users in real-time and multimedia

applications, the Internet and how to implement these applicationsto improve the quality of service (QoS) has become a significant

challenge. In this paper, a network with both IPv4 and IPv6protocols is simulated by using OPNET Modeler and

implementation of QoS is tested on it. Packet loss, end-to-end

delay and jitter were evaluated as network performance metrics.

The results showed that satisfying the needs of multimedia

applications on IPv6 are slightly weaker than IPv4, but the benefitshave evolved more and more and the difference is negligible. Also

according to the methods used in terms of this study, the

combination of DiffServ and MPLS QoS implementation is thebest option for both Internet Protocol versions.

Keywords—IPv4, IPv6, real-time applications, Quality of

Service (QoS), BE, DiffServ, MPLS

I.

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, Internet is the most important and popularnetwork of the world. But with the unexpected increase ofnumber of users, the current Internet (IPv4) is not able toexpand and due 32-bit address space, it is not possible toconnect more than four billion hosts on the network. In1991, IETF developed a new generation of Internet Protocolwith a 128-bit address space, currently known as IPv6 [1][2]. On the other hand, real-time and multimediaapplications such as voice and video, from the perspectiveof an Internet user, have a high degree of importance. Thusimproving the quality of service (QoS) and needs of the newgeneration of real-time applications should be considered.Quality of service of an application can be defined as thelevel of user satisfaction with using the program. Networkswhere QoS is not activated there, are known as Best Effort(BE). Differentiated Service (DiffServ) [3] and Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) [4] structures have beenproposed by the IETF are useful for guaranteeing QoS [5].

DiffServ architecture has features such as trafficclassification and scalability and can easily handle a large

volume of data [6]. In this mechanism, a bit is added to thepacket header. By this bit, a packet that arrive a router,declare belonging to a particular class of traffic. Routers inthe face of this bit behave a certain way. This mannerknown as Per-Hop Behavior (PHB) and during it the routerneeds more than one bit to make decisions [1]. IETF

assigned six valuable bits of TOS byte in the IPv4 headerand TC byte in the IPv6 header to the DiffServ Code Point(DSCP). DSCP is used for selecting a PHB by a packet [7].Three types of PHBs have been introduced by IETF. DefaultPHB tries to act as BE and has no guarantee in typical IPnetworks [8]. Expedited Forwarding (EF) has minimum lossand delay, and can be accessed by giving high priority topackets of EF or implementing WFQ with giving moreweight to these packets [1]. The third PHB is AssuredForwarding (AF) that is rooted in RED method. AF iscomposed from four classes and each class has three

different probability values to packets drop [1] [9].

MPLS improves scalability and flexibility of IP networkand by optimizing bandwidth minimize the congestioneffect [10]. The main idea behind MPLS networks is toprovide facilities for Forwarding Equivalence Classes(FEC). All packets of a FEC accept similar label andtransmit only through a path called LSP. Routers allocate aFEC to each of packets before sending them and then mapeach FEC to next step. So next routers don’t need to analyzethe packet header. It increases the speed of the network [4].In addition, the resources needed along the way, are alreadystored. Shim header is added to the start of IP header toinsert MPLS label. This header is 32 bit and composed offour parts. An important part is EXP (or QoS) that defines

the class of service [1].In this study a network is designed under two separate

IPv4 and IPv6 protocols and QoS performance metricsincluding delay, jitter, packet loss rate and throughput of thelinks in the BE, DiffServ and combining of MPLS andDiffServ are tested. At the end the results are reviewed witha comparative style.

The second part will point to related works. In the thirdpart we will propose a method with its simulation. SectionIV presents the results of the simulation, and finally aconclusion in Section V will be presented.

II.

RELATED WORKS

After IPv6 is proposed by IETF, attempts to compare

this protocol with IPv4 were done and still continue. It notonly helps to standardize IPv6, but leads to the evolution ofthe current version of Internet. [11] provided two sameworkstations under Windows 2000 and Solaris 8 and IPv6and IPv4 on these operating systems are implemented.Based on testing, IPv6 has lower throughput and higher



International Journal of

ISSN :2394 -2231

delay than IPv4. In [12], delay and packet lossscale IPv6 are studied. Results showed thatIPv6 is higher than IPv4 and more packets areVOIP performance was tested by a softphonetworks based on IPv4 and IPv6. The values othe experiments show that there is little differethe performances of VOIP in the two versprotocol. Even the maximum jitter and packetIPv6 are slightly more than IPv4.

[14], [15], [16] and [17], implemented abased on DiffServ (EF) on a real IPv6 network6NET that has the lowest latency, jitter and pareal-time traffic. In [18] a DiffServ network caall path from source to destination and the IntSmapped to DiffServ by a mapping function. Afrom the results, the QoS requirements canclearly in this way. [19] studied DiffServ QoSunder the three service classes EF, BE andversions of IP in two separate test bedclassification with access list to use flow labelheader. The successful implementation of theproven that the flow label classification basedpossible within a crowd. In [20] DiffServ is usQoS, but since DiffServ cannot control traffic c

end-to-end paths, MPLS do this. The resultsPacket Delay Variation (PDV) in IPv6 is more t

III.

THE PROPOSED METHOD AND SIMULATI

A. The Scheme and Network Topology

Here's a simple computer network intendevideo conferencing applications as network trafinto account and can occupy the entire networBE, DiffServ and combining of MPLS aarchitectures were used at three separate moeffectiveness in providing end-to-end QoS weDesired network is investigated in two indepewith different traffics and architectures. At the felements are configured to support IPv4 and

case, to support IPv6 only. Fig.1 shows the netby OPNET Modeler 14.5 simulator.

Fig. 1. The network configuration in OPNET sim

B. Network Traffic

To test the method proposed in this study,multimedia traffic such as voice and video

Computer Techniques - Volume1 Issue 2 Dec

http://ijctjournal.org

rate in largethe delay inlost. In [13]e for LANtained from

nce betweenions of theloss rate of

QoS serviceconnected tocket loss forn be seen inerv traffic is

we can seebe achievedmechanismsBE on both

and usedfield in IPv6e tests haveon DSCP isd to supportongestion of

suggest thathan IPv4.

ON PROCESS

. Audio andic was takenbandwidth.

d DiffServe and their

e compared.ndent modesirst, networkin the other

ork created

ulator

two types ofonferencing

traffic is taken into account. For vwith PCM quality, has been chosfor transmitting a digital phone syPCM data rate is 64 kilobits per seof the frames is 10 ms, i.e., an audior 80 bytes and 100 frames willaudio used in EF_Source and EF_and to be close to the volume of tra13 audio applications are used sim

with low resolution is used for vpixel of the video, is equivaletransmission rate in bits per secoThe video application is locateworkstations (AF4x_Destination ato measure the impact of congesttraffic began to flow at a time anend of the simulation.

Backbone of the network wLER_In and LER_Out, is the mainMPLS. In this area, there are two quse of OSPF algorithm will divideequal between paths. At the end,8.2 Mbps on the links in this area is

C.

Design TestThe Test consists of three pa

influence of BE, DiffServ and Meach of these sections are impleIPv4 and IPv6. To prepare the teaddressed and then as OSPFvalgorithms are implanted for IPv4the backbone network. To apply Bof TOS and TC fields and consezero.

In the second part, the DSapplication goes to EF mode and iAF41, AF42 and AF42 values. Eused because of their appropriate

VOIP and video conferencing [22]AF42 and AF43, DSCP value b(100010), 36 (100100) and 38 (10PHBs allocate applications to sepavideo applications, each pair of woof the experiment those were the sAfter separation of traffic,transmitted to the backbone of ttheir priorities. This should be don(LER_In router). To prepare this(ACL) is defined on it, which helpand provides a classification baseOnce the traffic is identified baseand is classified and marked basinput interface of LER_In, it turns

mechanisms have been used for thWRED traffic classes are available.

The final section of test is the ion a test bed which DiffServ enabof the test, packets sent fromregardless of the routing algorithm

- 2014

oice traffic, conversationn. PCM coding schemetem is discussed in [21].cond and the default sizeo frame’s size is 640 bitsbe sent per second. TheDestination workstationsffic on the other stations,ultaneously. Then, video

ideo conferencing. Eachnt to 9 bits and datad is equal to 1,382,400.

on three couples ofnd AF4x_Source). Hereion on the network, thed will continue until the

ich is located betweendomain of DiffServ and

uite similar paths and thethe traffic approximatelyxperimental data rate ofdefined.

ts, which in turn, studyLS on the network andented separately on thet bed, the interfaces are

and OSPFv3 routingand IPv6 respectively in

to the system, the valueuently DSCP should be

CP field in the audiovideo applications takesand AF4x services are

ess and acceptability in

. By applying EF, AF41,comes 46 (101110), 34110) respectively. These

rate classes, especially inrkstations in the first partame, will act differently.pplications should bee network according toe at the edge of the areaouter, first an access lists router to identify traffic

on the source address.d on the source addressd on DSCP field at thequeuing traffic. CBWFQ

is work. Next, apply the

mplementation of MPLSed on it. Under this parta predetermined path,

. This path is determined




ISSN :2394 -2231

for each class of service depending on tapplication. To do this, two round trip aredown the MPLS domain to transfer voiceapplications. Then FECs are defined. In oaccording to the application, four types of FEthose are separated according to the DSCP in tIP packets. The second general definition fstructure is traffic body that characterize incoflow to LSPs and bound FECs. By definitio

traffic body profiles based on common PHBadapt MPLS to provide QoS. That must bebetween the EXP bits in the MPLS shim headfield of the IP header to make them understandother and classes of service are defined for MPModeler has a standard EXPPHB mapvalues in this study according to the guideligiven in Table 1. Finally, the general definitionbe called in two edge routers in the MPLS domshould be dedicated. In this experiment, the uused for the transmission of audio and firstconferencing application and two other videoare transmitted by lower path.

TABLE I. EXPPHB MAPPING

PHB EXP

EF 0

AF41 1

AF42 2

AF43 3

(c)

Fig. 2. End-to-end delay of audio packets in EF_Source a)

(c)

Fig. 3. End-to-end delay of video packets in AF41_Source

IV.

TEST RESULTS

The Results which we focus on their, are



he type ofade up andand video

ur network,s is defined

he header ofor a MPLSming trafficn FECs and

s, turn is toa mappingr and DSCPble for eachLS. OPNETing that its

nes [23] areabove mustin and LSPspper path ispair’s videoapplications

(a) (b)

BE, b) DiffServ, c) MPLS

(a) (b)

a) BE, b) DiffServ, c) MPLS

he so-called

QoS performance metrics. QoSdepends on the application thaapplications, may have different defollowing criteria are consideredother definitions can also be con[25].

●

Delay: shows the period bfrom the source to the dMostly expressed in terms o

●

Jitter: This measure hasmain definition introducedbetween the delays of two c

●

Loss: The percentage of dthe destination at specified t

D. Delay

In figures 2 to 5 audio anddelay at the source node can be seIPv4 transmit packets slightly fastis that in IPv6 networks, pareconstruction is performed ondestination nodes and packet paylconstant. But in IPv4 networks, senetwork nodes [26]. Another impor

of DiffServ to BE. The reason forspent in the DiffServ domain edgeand queuing of packets. This unethe DiffServ is not able to meetMPLS should be used to incrapplied in AF42 and AF43 serviceThis delay comes from overcrowdembedded to these two servicessignificant point is the stability of tto reduce the jitter.

(c)

Fig. 4. End-to-end delay of video packets i

(c)

- 2014

parameters are defineduses it and different

finition for those. But thes the basis of QoS and

verted to this form [24]

etween data transferringstination until it arrive.f end-to-end delay.

several definitions. The jitter as the differencensecutive data units.

ata units that don’ reachime.

ideo packets end-to-endn. The results show thatr than IPv6. The reasonket segmentation and

ly at the source andoad in the entire path ismentation is done at the

tant point is further delay

this paradox is the timerouters for classification

xpected delay notes thatthe needs for QoS andased efficiency. MPLSalso increases the delay.

ing of down path that ispass through. But the

his delay that is desirable

(b)

AF42_Source a) BE, b) DiffServ, c) M

(b)




ISSN :2394 -2231

Fig. 5. End-to-end delay of video packets in AF43_Source

E. Jitter

To investigate the jitter on the network, soare used. In OPNET this measure in video apnamed as Packet Delay Variation (PDV). T jitters of experiments are observed in figures 6IPv6 is generally better than IPv4. This point

about the EF and AF41 services that are tranover our network. AF42 and AF43 services alsosituation before applying MPLS, but after theintended to be more crowded, IPv4 jitter is lesDiffServ create more jitter than BE. MPLS is aEF and AF41 PHBs improve jitter, but on tPHBs due to path congestion, this standard is in

(c)

Fig. 6. Jitter in EF_Source a) BE, b) DiffServ, c) MPLS

F. Loss

To check the amount of packet loss, receivbe addressed workstations and compare it withThe same as before, received traffic at the sourstudied to observe the packet loss rate. Resimulation are shown in Figures 10 to 13. Wiview we can see that in the absence of Trafficwith MPLS, IPv6 packet loss is less than

architecture allows separation of traffic pathsIPv4 loss. Here BE acts better than DiffServloss. Finally, as expected, EF and AF41 PHBlosses than AF42 and AF43. This returns to tprioritization.

(c)

Fig. 7. Jitter in AF41_Source a) BE, b) DiffServ, c) MPLS



a) BE, b) DiffServ, c) MPLS

urce stationsplications ishe obtainedo 9. Jitter inis quite true

smitted wellhave such aath they ares than IPv6.pplied in thee other tworeased.

(a) (b)

d traffic cansent traffic.e stations is

sults of theh an overallEngineeringIPv4. This

and reduceand has less

have fewereir inherent

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 8.

(c)

Fig. 9. Jit ter in AF43_Source a) BE, b) Di

(c)

Fig. 10. Traffic received in EF_Source a)

V.

CONCLUSI

The results show that the fourhave direct relationship to each othof one, another improve. Figuresthat IPv4 provides QoS requiremIPv6. But it is not too much diffeother benefits of IPv6 could makeAnother important result of theDiffServ architecture alone cannotime applications and it is not mucmight work worse. For this purmust be used in combinat ion to Dsatisfied as possible.

- 2014

(b)

. Jitter in AF42_Source a) BE, b) Dif

(b)

ffServ, c) MPLS

(b)

E, b) DiffServ, c) MPLS

N

riteria of interest almoster and with improvementan be generally explain

ents slightly better thanrence between them andthe difference tolerated.experiment is that the

t provide QoS for real- different to BE. Even it

ose, MPLS architectureiffServ to QoS needs be




ISSN :2394 -2231

(c)

Fig. 11. Traffic received in AF41_Source a) BE, b) DiffSe

(c)

Fig. 12. Traffic received in



(a) (b)

rv, c) MPLS

(a) (b)

AF42_Source a) BE, b) DiffServ, c) MPLS

(c)

Fig. 13. Traffic received in AF43_Source

REFERENC

[1] Larry L. Peterson, Bruce S. Davie, “approach,” 4th edition, Morgan Kauf

437, 499-524.

[2] Sandeep Lugani, “Introduction to IWHITE PAPER, Wipro Infotech, 200

[3] S. Blake, D. Black, M. Carlson, E. D

Architecture for Differentiated Se

Engineering Task Force, December 19[4] E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, R.Switching Architecture,” RFC 3031, I

January 2001. [5] D. Zhang, D. Ionescu, “QoS perform

Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic EnginInt. Conf. Software Engineering, Arti

and Parallel/Distributed Computing S[6] S. Deering, R. Hinden, “Internet

Specification,” RFC 2460, Intern

December 1998. [7] Md. Tariq Aziz, Mohammad Saiful I

of Real–Time Applications over

Networks,” Blekinge Institute of TecMS Thesis, May 2011.

[8] K. Nichols, S. Blake, F. Baker,

Differentiated Services Field (DSHeaders,” RFC 2474, Internet Engin

1998. [9] J. Heinanen, F. Baker, W. Weis

Forwarding PHB Group,” RFC 25

Force, June 1999. [10] G. Swallow, “MPLS advantage

Communications Magazine, IEEE, 19

[11] S. Zeadally, I. Raicu, “Evaluating I

IEEE Internet Computing, 2003, pp. 51[12] Z. Xiaoming, M. Jacobsson, U. Henk,

loss performance evolution,” Internati

Systems, vol. 21, pp. 643-663, 2008. [13] Roman Yasinovskyy, Alexander L.

Gholam Khaksari, “A comparison ofIPv4 networks,” Computer Systems

AICCSA 2009, page 603. [14] C. Bouras, A. Gkamas, D. Primpas,

aspects in an IPv6 domain,” I

Performance Evaluation of Comp

Systems (SPECTSf04), 2004, pp. 23

[15] C. Bouras, A. Gkamas, D. PrimpEvaluation of the Impact of QoS Mec

IPv6-Capable Real-Time ApplicatioSystems Management, 2004, vol. 12, n

[16] C. Bouras, D. Primpas, K. Stamos, “Q

network,” International Symposium

- 2014

) BE, b) DiffServ, c) MPLS

S

Computer networks: a systemsann, 2007, pp. 318-329, 426-

ternet Protocol - Version 6,”. vies, Z. Wang, W. Weiss, “An

rvice,” RFC 2475, Internet

98. allon, “Multiprotocol Labelternet Engineering Task Force,

nce analysis in deployment of

eering,” in Proc. Eighth ACISficial Intelligence, Networking,

PD 2007, vol. 3, pp. 963–967. Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6)

t Engineering Task Force,

slam, “Performance Evaluation

DiffServ/MPLS in IPv4/IPv6

nology, School of Computing,

. Black, “Definition of the

ield) in the IPv4 and IPv6eering Task Force, December

s, J. Wroclawski, “Assured7, Internet Engineering Task

for traffic engineering,”9, vol. 37, pp. 54–57. v6 on Windows and Solaris,”

–57. , M. Piet Van, “IPv6 delay and

nal Journal of Communication

Wijesinha, Ramesh K. Karne,

VoIP performance on IPv6 andand Applications, IEEE/ACS,

. Stamos, “Quality of Service

nternational Symposium on

uter and Telecommunication

8–245. s, K. Stamos, “Performanceanisms in an IPv6 Network for

s,” Journal of Network ando. 4, pp. 463–483. oS issues in a Large-scale IPv6

n Performance Evaluation of



International Journal of Computer Techniques - Volume1 Issue 2 Dec - 2014

ISSN :2394 -2231 http://ijctjournal.org

Computer and Telecommunication Systems (SPECTS' 05), 2005, pp.

406-415. [17] C. Bouras, A. Gkamas, D. Primpas, K. Stamos, “IPv6 deployment:

Real-time applications and QoS aspects,” Computer communications,

2006, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 1393–1401. [18] H.Bai, M. Atiquzzaman, W. Ivancic, “Achieving End-to-End QoS in

the Next Generation Internet: Integrated Services Over Differentiated

Service Networks,” NASA/TM-2001- 210755, March 2001. [19] C. Bouras, D. Primpas, K. Stamos, “IPv6 QoS testing on dual stack

network,” ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 198,

1190186, 2006.

[20]

Md. Tariq Aziz, Mohammad Saiful Islam, Md. Nazmul Islam khan,Adrian Popescu, “effect of packet delay variation on video/voice over

DiffServ-MPLS in IPv4/IPv6 networks, ” International Journal of

Distributed and Parallel Systems (IJDPS), Vol.3, No.1, January 2012. [21] N. Kitawaki, K. Itoh, K. Kakehi, “Speech quality of PCM system in

digital telephone network,” Electronics and Communications in Japan(Part I: Communications), Volume 65, Issue 8, pages 1–8, 1982.

[22] Imad J. Mohamad, Tat-Chee Wan, Faizal Y. AL Zyoud, Putra

Sumari, “Optimizing the MPLS Support for Real Time IPv6-Flows

using MPLS-PHS Approach,” TENCON2009, Singapore, November2009.

[23] F. Le Faucheur, L. Wu, B. Davie, S. Davari, P. Vaananen, R.Krishnan, P. Cheval, J. Heinanen, “Multi-Protocol Label Switching

(MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services,” RFC 3270, Internet

Engineering Task Force, May 2002. [24] H. Knoche, H. de Meer, “QoS parameters: A comparative study,”

University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany, Tech. Rep, 1997. [25] M. A. El-Gendy, A. Bose, K. G. Shin, “Evolution of the Internet QoS

and support for soft real-time applications,” Proceedings of the IEEEVolume 91, Issue 7, pp. 1086 - 1104, July 2003.

[26] R. AlJa’afreh, J. Mellor, I. Awan, “A Comparison Between theTunneling Process and Mapping Schemes for IPv4/IPv6 Transition,”

in Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops,2009. WAINA’09. International Conference on. IEEE, 2009, pp.

601–606.

[ijct-v1i2p2] author :vahid ghoreish

Documents