D2.2.4: Final IPv4 to IPv6 Transition Cookbook for ... - 6NET

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IST-2001-32603Deliverable D 2.2.45. Dual-stack Routing Performance: RIPE-TTM viewIn this Section we use an existing IPv6 performance measurement tool, the RIPE Test TrafficMeasurement service, to illustrate the relative performance for end-to-end response time for IPv4and IPv6 paths between identical end servers deployed between sample 6NET partner sites.The RIPE TTM service is described in detail in D6.2.4.In this section we show the results of the ‘Last 30 day’ plots for IPv4 and IPv6 packet delay, delayvariation, valid packets and packet loss between four 6NET partner sites and the TTM server at theUniversity of Southampton (UK). The Southampton server is natively connected to its campusnetwork, and from there to its regional network (LeNSE) and to JANET (the UK academicbackbone).Note that the (native) hop count from the Southampton TTM server to the regional MAN is 12 hopsfor IPv4 and only 9 hops for IPv6, due to the IPv6 path taking a ‘VLAN shortcut’ across thecampus. Thus the IPv6 hop counts in the plots in this Section will generally be shorter for IPv6.There may also be variations in topology at the sending nodes (the RIPE TTM data collectstraceroutes over time, but these are not included here).The overall pattern for the four plot pairs shown below is that the packet delay variation is less forIPv6 than it is for IPv4, and that the path is reported as being generally more stable for IPv6 (thevariation in hop count, shown by the red line in the top left plots, is less). The scatter of the delaysin the top left image gives a visual overview the packet variation.The plot pairs show that general packet delay, and thus round trip time, is equivalent for IPv4 andIPv6 for each sample plotted.There is only one significant IPv6 outage, on the NIIF-Southampton link, that caused severe packetloss for two days, while the IPv4 link was unaffected.We also report on plots for IIJ, a Japanese ISP, for interest, although IIJ is not involved in 6NET.Here, the delays are equivalent, but the delay variation is greater for IPv6 rather than IPv4. Thus itis not likely to simply be volume of IPv6 traffic (IPv6 congestion) that is affecting the delayvariation.There are no US-based TTM servers to make IPv6 comparisons against; the Internet 2 communityuses a different set of measurement tools. It would be worthwhile to collaborate in deploying toolsbetween the communities to measure IPv4 and IPv6 performance.Note we are not measuring throughput in these plots, just the ‘basic’ network characteristics.However, they show an encouraging picture for the quality of the IPv6 service in the NRENs.50
IST-2001-32603Deliverable D 2.2.45.1. SURFnet (NL) to University of Southampton (UK)5.1.1. IPv45.1.2. IPv6In this example, the IPv6 path to the TTM server in SURFnet has a lower hop count, less variationin packet delays, and greater stability in the path.51
Page 4 and 5: IST-2001-32603Deliverable D 2.2.44.
Page 7: IST-2001-32603Deliverable D 2.2.4De
Page 11 and 12: IST-2001-32603Deliverable D 2.2.4
Page 15 and 16: IST-2001-32603Deliverable D 2.2.4Th
Page 19 and 20: IST-2001-32603Deliverable D 2.2.4te
Page 21 and 22: IST-2001-32603Deliverable D 2.2.4ne
Page 23 and 24: IST-2001-32603Deliverable D 2.2.4to
Page 25 and 26: IST-2001-32603Deliverable D 2.2.4Al
Page 29 and 30: IST-2001-32603Deliverable D 2.2.4ha
Page 33 and 34: IST-2001-32603Deliverable D 2.2.4Fi
Page 35 and 36: IST-2001-32603Deliverable D 2.2.4co
Page 37 and 38: IST-2001-32603Deliverable D 2.2.4"M
Page 39 and 40: IST-2001-32603Deliverable D 2.2.4}}
Page 43 and 44: IST-2001-32603Deliverable D 2.2.4de
Page 45 and 46: IST-2001-32603Deliverable D 2.2.4Fi
Page 47 and 48: IST-2001-32603Deliverable D 2.2.4.b
Page 49: IST-2001-32603Deliverable D 2.2.4ne
Page 59: IST-2001-32603Deliverable D 2.2.4[D

D2.2.4: Final IPv4 to IPv6 Transition Cookbook for ... - 6NET

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?