Icemc2 kuppam


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Icemc2 kuppam

  1. 2. <ul><li>This paper clearly specifies comparative and behavior analysis carried out on the two major IPv6 interoperation mechanisms : BD-SIIT and DSTM for the high level compatibility smooth transition, and interoperation between IPv4 and IPv6. </li></ul><ul><li>This paper proposes the performance analysis of the difference between the BD-SIIT and DSTM. </li></ul><ul><li>We Implement the BD-SIIT and DSTM in order to Study their behavior using various evaluation metrics such as Throughput, End-to-End delay(EED),RTT. </li></ul><ul><li>The Simulation results of our experiment shows that DSTM RTT,EED, and Throughput performance metrics are better than BD-SIIT when we are using Large size IPv6 packet. </li></ul>July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA.
  2. 3. <ul><li>Limitations of IPv4. </li></ul><ul><li>Introduction. </li></ul><ul><li>Overview of IPv6. </li></ul><ul><li>-IPv6 : Distinctive Features. </li></ul><ul><li>-IPv6 Header Format. </li></ul><ul><li>Back Ground </li></ul><ul><li>-Transition techniques from IPv4 to IPv6. </li></ul><ul><li>Related Work. </li></ul><ul><li>-Literature review about BD-SIIT and DSTM. </li></ul><ul><li>-Comparison between BD-SIIT and DSTM in 4G Mobile nets. </li></ul><ul><li>Performance evaluation metrics and Simulation parameters of BD-SIIT and DSTM. </li></ul><ul><li>- Simulation results and Discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusion. </li></ul><ul><li>References . </li></ul>July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA.
  3. 4. July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA.
  4. 5. <ul><li>IPv4 has 32 bit addresses. </li></ul><ul><li>Flat addressing (only netid + hostid with “fixed” boundaries) </li></ul><ul><li>Results in inefficient use of address space. </li></ul><ul><li>Class B addresses are almost over. </li></ul><ul><li>Addresses will exhaust in the next 5 years. </li></ul><ul><li>IPv4 is victim of its own success . </li></ul>July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA.
  5. 6. <ul><li>IP does not permit route aggregation </li></ul><ul><li>(limited supernetting possible with new routers) </li></ul><ul><li>Mostly only class C addresses remain </li></ul><ul><li>Number of networks is increasing very fast </li></ul><ul><li>(number of routes to be advertised goes up) </li></ul><ul><li>Very high routing overhead </li></ul><ul><ul><li>lot more memory needed for routing table </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>lot more bandwidth to pass routing information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>lot more processing needed to compute routes </li></ul></ul>July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA.
  6. 7. <ul><li>Maximum header length is 60 octets. </li></ul><ul><li>(Restricts options) </li></ul><ul><li>Maximum packet length is 64K octets. </li></ul><ul><li>(Do we need more than that ?) </li></ul><ul><li>ID for fragments is 16 bits. Repeats every 65537th packet. </li></ul><ul><li> (Will two packets in the network have same ID?) </li></ul><ul><li>Variable size header. </li></ul><ul><li>(Slower processing at routers.) </li></ul><ul><li>No ordering of options. </li></ul><ul><li>(All routers need to look at all options.) </li></ul>July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA.
  7. 8. <ul><li>Lack of quality-of-service support. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Only an 8-bit ToS field, which is hardly used. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Problem for multimedia services. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>No support for security at IP layer. </li></ul><ul><li>Mobility support is limited . </li></ul>July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA.
  8. 9. July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA.
  9. 11. July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA. IPv6 Address Fig-1 .
  10. 12. <ul><li>Larger address space(Scalability ). </li></ul><ul><li>- IPv6 has 128-bit address versus 32-bit IPv4 .With theoretical number of available IP addresses is 2 32 ~10 10 . </li></ul><ul><li>-Hence number of available unique node addresses is 2 128 ~ 10 39. </li></ul><ul><li>Header format simplification </li></ul><ul><li>Expanded routing and addressing capabilities . </li></ul><ul><li>- IPv6 improves the addressing and routing hierarchy . </li></ul><ul><li>Improved support for extensions and options . </li></ul><ul><li>- IPv6 has been designed to be extensible and offers support for new options and extensions. </li></ul><ul><li>Optimized Protocol . </li></ul><ul><li>- IPv6 embodies IPv4 best practices but removes unused or obsolete IPv4 characteristics. </li></ul>July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA.
  11. 13. July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA.
  12. 14. July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA. Traffic Class Flow Label Vers Payload Length Next Header Hop Limit Source Address Destination Address 0 4 12 16 24 31
  13. 15. <ul><li>No “flag”day. </li></ul><ul><li>Incremental upgrade and deployment. </li></ul><ul><li>Minimum upgrade dependencies. </li></ul><ul><li>Interoperability of IPv4 and IPv6 nodes. </li></ul><ul><li>Let sites transition at their own pace. </li></ul><ul><li>Basic migration tools </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dual stack and tunneling </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Translation </li></ul></ul>July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA.
  14. 16. <ul><li>New nodes support both IPv4 and IPv6. </li></ul><ul><li>Upgrading from IPv4 to v4/v6 does not break anything. </li></ul><ul><li>Same transport layer and application above both. </li></ul><ul><li>Provides complete interoperability with IPv4 nodes . </li></ul>July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA.
  15. 17. July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA. Fig.2.Dual Stack .
  16. 18. <ul><li>Tunnel IPv6 packets across IPv4 topology. </li></ul><ul><li>Configured tunnels: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Explicitly configured tunnel endpoints. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Router to router, host to router. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Automatic tunnels: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Automatic address resolution using embedded IPv4 address (like IPv4-compatible address). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Host to host, router to host </li></ul></ul>July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA.
  17. 19. July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA. Fig.3.Automatic Tunneling . Fig.4. C on figured Tunneling .
  18. 20. <ul><li>This will allow communication between IPv6 only hosts and IPv4 only hosts. </li></ul><ul><li>A typical translator consists of two components: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>translation between IPv4 and IPv6 packets. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Address mapping between IPv4 and IPv6 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>For translation, three technologies are available: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>header conversion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>transport relay </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>application proxy </li></ul></ul>July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA.
  19. 21. July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA. Fig.6.Header Translation .
  20. 23. July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA. Fig.1.BD-SIIT Translation process
  21. 24. July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA. Fig.2.Translation of IPv6 to IPv4 Header .
  22. 27. Fig.3. BD-SIIT Data packet Transmission Process.
  23. 28. BD-SIIT Translation mainly occurs due to following Stages
  24. 29. BD-SIIT DSTM 1.It does not for tunneling technique . 1. A tunneling technique needs to be configured. 2. Two IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are assumed to be globally unique. 2.Only IPv4 addresses are assumed to be globally unique . 3.It Uses two types of global IP addresses that are assigned by DNS46 server for each communication system. 3. Uses only a pool of IPv4 addresses in order to assign Global IPv4 address for each communication system. 4.Applicable for Bi-Directional common between IPv6 only nodes and IPv4 nodes. 4.Not applicable to IPv6 only nodes that want to communicate with IPv4 only node. 5.Less cost 5.High Cost 6.Does not require upgrading or extra software to be used at end user nodes. 6.Requires modifications or extra software to support the dual stack on the end user nodes. 7.Transition from IPv4 to IPv6 and Vice versa is needed. 7.Encapsulation and Decapsulation methods are needed.
  25. 30. Fig.5.BD-SIIT Network model .
  26. 31. July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA. Fig.7.DSTM Network model .
  27. 34. July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA. Simulation Parameters Value 1.Buffer Size 500 Packets 2. Propogation Delay 10ms 3.payload size 200 Bytes 4.Very traffic Load 6~240 Nodes. 5.Queue Management Scheme Drop tail.
  28. 36. July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA. References [1].Hanumanthappa.J.,Manjaiah.D.H.,Vinayak.B.Joshi.,” A Study on IPv6 in IPv4 Static Tunneling threat issues in 4G Networks using OOAD Class and Instance Diagrams” ,Proceedings of the International Conference on Emerging Trends in Computer Science,Communication and Information Technology,(CSCIT2010)organized by Dept of CS and Information Technology,Yeshwanth Mahavidyalaya,Nanded,Maharastra,INDIA, January 09-11,2010,[Paper code CSCIT-152][CSCITOP113].   [2].Hanumanthappa.J.,Manjaiah.D.H.,Vinayak.B.Joshi.,” An IPv4-to-IPv6 threat reviews with dual stack transition mechanism considerations a transitional threat model in 4G Wireless networks ”Proceedings of the International Conference on Emerging Trends in Computer Science, Communication and Information Technology,(CSCIT2010)organized by Dept of CS and Information Technology,Yeshwanth Mahavidyalaya,Nanded,Maharastra,INDIA,January 09-11,2010,[Paper code CSCIT-157] [CSCITOP115].   [3].Hanumanthappa.J.,Manjaiah.D.H.,Vinayak.B.Joshi.,” Implementation,Comparative and Performance Analysis of IPv6 over IPv4 QoS metrics in 4G Networks: Single-source-destination paths Delay, Packet Loss Performance and Tunnel Discovery Mechanisms&quot;, Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Science and Applications(ICISA-2010)organized by Dept. of Master of Computer Applications,Panimalar Engineering College,Chennai-600 123,Tamilnadu,India.,February-06-2010,[Paper code ICISA-293(with serial no-101)].   [4].Hanumanthappa.J.,Manjaiah.D.H,Vinayak.B.Joshi ,”High Performance evaluation of Multimedia Video Streaming over IP networks” ,Proceedings of the National conference on Computing communications and Information systems(NCCCIS-2010)organized by Department of Information Technology Sri Krishna College of Engineering and Technology,Kuniamuthur,Coimbatore-641008,INDIA,February-12-13,2010,[Paper id NCCCIS-MM-03],pp-88-92.  
  29. 39.
  30. 42. July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA. Any Questions ?
  31. 43. July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA.
  32. 44. July 27-28 ICEMC2-2010,Kuppam,AP,INDIA.