International Journal of Communication and Information Technology 2020; 1(2): 06-10

E-ISSN: 2707-6628
P-ISSN: 2707-661X
IJCIT 2020; 1(2): 06-10 An approach to creating wireless network interface
Received: 03-05-2020
Accepted: 06-06-2020 amongst IPv4, IPv6 and dual stack networks
Dipti Chauhan
Assistant Professor SUAS, Dipti Chauhan, Jay Kumar Jain and Anshu Shrivastava
Indore, Madhya Pradesh,
India
Abstract
Jay Kumar Jain The networking community is colossally moving towards the IPv6 addressing abandoning the IPv4
Associate Professor, SIRT, address space. This occurs because of the enormous development of Internet utilization over the
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, networks. Government has mandated from June 2006 onwards that all the devices would be IPv6 ready
India as the postponement in the organization of IPv6 would bring about the negative effect of future
development and worldwide network. In this paper we are managing the effect of various interfaces
Anshu Shrivastava like IPv4 just, IPv6 just and Dual stack instrument over remote systems with changing PHY and MAC
Assistant Professor, OIST layer interface with various wireless standards. The outcomes of results are simulated over Qualnet 5.1
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, test system with different parameters like throughput, delay, jitter and packet delivery ratio is been
India calculated.

Keywords: Dual Stack, IPv4, IPv6, Interface, Tunneling.

Introduction
Internet protocol version 4 (IPv4) is the most widely used addressing protocol defined in the
world’s standard and is in the final stage of exhaustion of its unallocated address space. IPv4
is the 32 bit protocol which uniquely and universally defines the connection of a device to
the Internet. With its 32 bits it can address up to 232 devices
i.e. more than 4.3 billion addresses [1]. IPv4 was developed in 1982, at that time traffic was
very elastic and internet was only used for mail and file transfer purpose. To handle this kind
of traffic is very flexible, on the other hand the tremendous growth of internet have resulted
for the use of multimedia and different kinds of inelastic traffic which requires a certain level
of performance which cannot be met using IPv4. IPv6 was designed to meet with the
requirements of future applications in mind and to solve the address exhaustion problem
faced by IPv4.
IPv6 is the next generation internet protocol uses 128 bits, i.e. it can be used to address 2128
devices over the internet which is 296 times more than IPv4[2]. IPv6 additionally offers
sundry advantages over the legacy IPv4 like larger address space, Scalability, Fixed Header,
Quality of Service, Security, Plug and play and many more. The usage of IPv6 will led the
organizations to take the numerous opportunities presented by Internet of Things (IOT) to
Internet of Everything (IOE). This adoption will provide various technological enhancements
which could be beyond our imagination. The migration towards IPv6 is not an option it’s a
necessity as a very few IPv4 addresses are remaining. There will be estimated 50 billion
connected devices by 2020, which is not possible with the usage of IPv4 address [3, 13]. So in
future to amend the network connectivity and operations the organizations public and
private, regime sectors will require to transition towards IPv6.
IPv6 will gradually supersede IPv4 and it will still take a lot of time to migrate towards IPv6.
Till then we have to deal with networks in which IPv4, IPv6 and both the networks will
coexist. The biggest problem with the two protocols is that IPv6 is not a superset of
functionality that is backward compatible with IPv4 and IPv4 hosts and routers do not
support IPv6. Different migration techniques have been suggested from the past to enable the
smooth transition between the two protocols like dual stack, tunneling and header translation
[4]
. Dual stack [5] enables to operate both the protocol stack on all the components of the
network system. Tunneling deals with encapsulating one packet inside another and carrying
Corresponding Author: the packets across the networks. Header translation deals with header and address translation
Dipti Chauhan through between the two protocols, by translating through CG NAT (Carrier Gateway
Assistant Professor SUAS, Network Address Translator) device. Figure 1 depicts the transition scenario how IPv6
Indore, Madhya Pradesh, would gradually replace IPv6.
India

~6~
International Journal of Communication and Information Technology http://www.computersciencejournals.com/ijcit

migration towards IPv6. It is not possible to convert the

entire network to IPv6 in one shot so dual stack and
tunneling mode will be used. The different scenarios have
been considered for the work to do are. Backbone becomes
Dual Stack: In this case, the core backbone is converted to
dual stack (IPv4 and IPv6) and the servers and tributaries
remain at IPv4. This approach could be the starting point for
migrating towards IPv6. Here No applications needs to be
converted as this is very difficult and time consuming task.
Fewer pieces of equipment need to be converted. In this
approach, only the backbone or core routers need to be
converted.
Backbone remains IPv4; only edge/boundary becomes IPv6:
In this case, the core remains at IPv4. Here an application at
Fig 1: Transition Scenarios a remote server must be accessed via IPv6. A tunnel or
translation gateway must be provided. The options include:
In this paper we are dealing with the dual stack mode of static tunnels, 6to4 dynamic tunnels, GRE tunnels or IPv6
transition. In dual-stack architecture, all the components of proxies. The remote routers will perform conversion of
the network system should support both the protocols IPv4 packets from IPv6 to IPv4. The IPv4 packet will go across
and IPv6. Applications must choose either IPv4 or IPv6, by the network and be converted to IPv6 at the receiving end.
selecting the correct address based on the type of IP traffic Rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section II
and particular requirements of the communication. describes about the deployment status of IPv6 across the
Currently dual-stack is the most preferred deployment internet. Section III discuss about the different types of
strategy for the network with a mixture of IPv4 and IPv6 nodes available during the transition process. Section IV
applications that require both the protocols. But it includes describes the Simulation scenario. Results are discussed in
many problems like all the network infrastructures i.e. section V. Section VI concludes the paper.
router, bridges devices etc. must be upgraded to IPv6 and itI. Deployment status of IPv6 across the internet Today,
also requires the dual management of IPv4 and IPv6 routing Internet of Things is very much a part of our everyday lives
tables. Simplicity of routing is supposed to be a strength of and it would be impossible to keep us away from this
IPv6, if this sort of transition mechanism were used it would development. As per Gartner’s prediction, by 2020 there
become a weakness. In this paper we are analyzing the will be 20.4 billion connected devices in 2017, up 31% from
impact of IPv4 interface, IPv6 interface and Dual stack 2016 and market value 2.1 trillion dollars by 2020[8]. This
interface over wireless networks with varying PHY and would be possible with the adoption of next generation
MAC layer interface of 802.11 a/g and 802.11 b standards. internet protocol IPv6. The next generation internet protocol
802.11a/g PHY is an extension to IEEE 802.11 PHY that IPv6 is in the various stages of deployment across the
applies to wireless LANs and provides up to 54 Mbps in the internet. Despite of numerous advantages that IPv6 offers
5 GHz band. 802.11a PHY uses an orthogonal frequency over IPv4, the adoption rate of IPv6 by the end users is very
division multiplexing encoding scheme [6]. 802.11b PHY is slow. To adopt IPv6 is the only way to sort out the address
an extension to IEEE 802.11 PHY that applies to wireless depletion problem which was the major issue faced by IPv4.
LANS and provides 11 Mbps transmission (with a fallback As per the recent Google’s statistics as on 19 May 2020,
to 5.5, 2 and 1 Mbps) in the 2.4 GHz band. 802.11b PHY shows the availability of approximately 30.94% IPv6
uses only Direct-Sequence Spread-Spectrum (DSSS) addresses availability to its user and Native IPv6 is 30.93%
modulation [7]. and 6to4/Teredo: 0.00% [9]. The availability of Pv6
Here we have considered different scenarios to assist the connectivity among Google users is shown in figure 2.

Fig 2: Percentage of users that access Google over IPv6

~7~
International Journal of Communication and Information Technology http://www.computersciencejournals.com/ijcit

From the figure it is clear that the IPv6 adoption rate by the and performance of networks to improve their design,
users is still very low. This is due to the fact of operation and management. We have tested the impact of
incompatibility of two protocols. IPv4 will remain in the IPv4, IPv6 and Dual stack protocols over wireless networks
market for the long time unless the entire network will be with hundred nodes. Figure 3 shows the scenario of wireless
switched to IPv6. In this duration both the protocols networks.
need to coexist for a long time.

Types of nodes
Successful transition from IPv4 to IPv6 is a crucial task as
only a very small part of the world’s population is using
IPv6. The main issue arises with the compatibility of the
two protocols is that both the protocols are not compatible
with each other [10]. The differences arise in their headers
and the way the routers and intermediate devices handles the
packets. An IPv6 packet cannot be handled by an IPv4
device and vice versa. To enable the smooth transition
process the devices must be compatible to deal with both the
protocol stacks. The IPv6 specification requires 100 per cent
compatibility for the existing protocols and existing
applications during the transition. The different types of
devices available in the network are and their compatibility
is shown in table- 1:
1. IPv4 only node – This type of host or router implements
only IPv4 and it does not understand IPv6. It discards Fig 3: Scenario Wireless Network
IPv6 packets. The devices that exist before the
transition begins are IPv4 only nodes. A Field configuration of 1500m x 1500m is used for
2. IPv6 only node – This type of host or router implements simulation on Qualnet 5.1 simulator. In this scenario we
only IPv6 and it does not understand IPv4. It discards have taken wireless network 802.11 a/g and 802.11 b with
IPv4 packets. These devices will exist once the entire 100 nodes. Each node in the network acts as router which
network will be moved towards IPv6. routes packet to its intended destination. To generate the
3. IPv6 node – This type of host or router implements application layer traffic 10 Constant Bit Rate (CBR)
IPv6. But it also understands IPv4 application are used for transmitting packets of a fixed size
4. IPv6/IPv4 and IPv6-only nodes are both IPv6 nodes. at a fixed rate [11]. The sending rate is
5. IPv4 node – Any host or router that implements IPv4. 100 packets per second. MAC protocol 802.11 for wireless
IPv6/IPv4 and IPv4-only nodes are both IPv4 nodes. network is used. Here we have considered five different
6. IPv6/IPv4 node – A host or router that implements both cases based on the interfaces and types of nodes.
IPv4 and IPv6, which is also known as dual-stack. Case-1: V4 only- In this case nodes as well as interface on
7. IPv6-only node – A host or router that the network is based of version 4 of internet protocol.
implements IPv6, and does not implement IPv4. Case-2: V4 nodes Dual interface- In this case node on the
network is V4 and the interface is dual stack. In this case the
Table 1: Compatibility for types of nodes
communication is done through V4 mode.
IPv4 only IPv4 IPv6 only IPv6 Case-3:V6 Only - In this case nodes as well as interface on
Type of Node
node node node node the network is based of version 6 of internet protocol.
IPv4 only node √ √ X √ Case-4: V6 nodes Dual interface - In this case node on the
IPv4 node √ √ X √ network is V6 and the interface is dual stack. In this case the
IPv6 only node X X √ √ communication is done through V4 mode.
IPv6 node X √ √ √ Case-5: Dual Stack- In this case both nodes and interfaces
are operating upon dual stack environment.
The following section III describes about the simulation of
all the cases discussed in table 1. On the basis of these five cases following parameters have
been taken into consideration [12]-
Simulation Scenario
Simulation is done to provide a suitable environment for Throughput
specifying the network conditions like channel properties, Throughput is defined as the average rate of successful
terrain details, networking devices and the specifications of packet delivery on the communication channel. This is
entire protocol stack. Different Simulators have been used important metric because it reflects the overall performance
from the past to test the network protocols over different of the network, and its effect is also shown on other network
networks due to the fact that it is difficult to test the parameters. Generally it is measured in bits / second. The
performance of network over a large scale live network. To formula for throughput is given as:
acquire all the necessary details a scenario has been
designed in Qualnet 5.1 to simulate our desired Average End-to-End Delay
characteristics. Qualnet 5.1 Simulator which is a It is time to send a packet to the source until it is received by
comprehensive suite of tools for modeling large wired and the destination. This includes various delays such as
wireless networks. It uses simulation to predict the behavior

~8~
International Journal of Communication and Information Technology http://www.computersciencejournals.com/ijcit

queuing delay, processing delay, propagation delay etc. This only case for 802.11a/g because due to more number of bits
is very important factor for any network because it affects transmitted in this case.
the quality of the service. This is usually measured in
seconds.

Average Jitter
It is time difference in the interval between two consecutive
packets. For example, if the packet reaches T1 and packet2
at the time, then it reaches the time 2, compared to Jitter =
(T1-T2). Jitter is inversely proportional to the quality of
application. Jitter can be calculated only when at least two
packets have been received.

Packet Delivery Ratio

Packet Delivery ratio is the ratio of total number of packets
received at the destination to the total number of packets
sent by the source. Fig 5: Average end-to-end delay

Result & Discussion Average Jitter: Figure 6 shows the comparison of Average
On the basis of simulation results we have developed our Jitter for all the five cases. In the comparison of
results for different parameters. We have tested it over performance for Average end to end delay of different cases
802.11 a/g and 802.11 b standards. The metric based the delay is negligible for 802.11 a/g. It is high in case
analysis for different interfaces and nodes types based on of 802.11 b standard due to low bandwidth and is
five cases are shown in figure- 4-7.
extremely high in the case of v6 only node due to large
Throughput: Figure 4 shows the comparison of throughput
packet size of IPv6. This is the case when the entire
for all the five cases. In the comparison of performance for
throughput of different cases, we have obtained the best
network is v6 only and including the backbone
throughput for 802.11 a/g standard is obtained in the case of network.
v6 nodes dual stack. This is the case when nodes are v6 only
and the interface used for communication is v6 from the
dual stack mode. This is due to the fact when the nodes are
v6 only they are using better mechanism for communication
and the packet loss is less in this case. Where as in v4 nodes
dual stack mode and purely dual stack modes the results are
same. For 802.11 b standard better results are obtained in
the case of v4 nodes dual stack mode and purely dual stack
modes. This is due to the case that in both the standards the
communication is done using v4 protocol stack. Results are
high in 802.11a/g standard due to high bandwidth as
compared to 802.11b.
Fig 6: Average Jitter

Packet Delivery Ratio: Figure 7 shows the comparison of

Packet Delivery Ratio for all the five cases. In the
comparison of performance for packet delivery ratio of
different cases the PDR is highest for v6 nodes dual
interface for 802.11 a/g. It is also high in case of 802.11 b
for the case Dual stack and the v4 nodes dual int. This can
be seen with the performance of throughput also.

Fig 4: Throughput

Average End-to-End Delay (s): Figure 5 shows the

comparison of Average end-to-end delay for all the five
cases. In the comparison of performance for Average End-
to-End Delay of different cases the minimum delay for
802.11 a/g and 802.11 b standard is obtained in the case of
v4 only nodes. This is the case when the entire network is
v4 only including the backbone network. Due to small
packet size and high throughput the delay is reduced
Fig 7: Packet Delivery Ratio
however in other cases delay is less but it is highest in v6

~9~
International Journal of Communication and Information Technology http://www.computersciencejournals.com/ijcit

Conclusion "Enhancing The Efficiency of Multihop Ipv6 Tunnels

IPv6 is the next generation Internet protocol which will Using Header Compression Over Varying Packet Sizes,
eventually replace IPv4, but until this happens these two 2015.
protocols need to coexist for a long time. IPv6 offers several
benefits over IPv4, still the adoption rate is very low over
worldwide. In this paper we have show the deployment
status of IPv6 across the Internet which is very low. IPv6 is
necessity and not the choice so it needs to be adopted. In
this paper we have deployed the scenario of wireless
network over different PHY and MAC layer interface of
802.11 a/g and 802.11 b standards. Five cases have been
considered and results have been obtained on Qualnet 5.1
simulator for various parameters like throughput, delay,
jitter and packet delivery ratio. Results shows that the out of
all the cases best result is obtained for v6 nodes dual int case
when a node on the network is V6 and the interface is dual
stack. In this case the communication is done through V4
mode. This study would be useful for the deployment of
IPv6 protocol across the Internet.

References
1. Rey MD. California 90291. Internet Protocol, Darpa
Internet Program, Protocol Specification. RFC 791.
[Online]. Available: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc791
2. Lehr W, Vest T, Lear E. “Running on empty: The
challenge of managing Internet addresses,” Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority File Version: Internet
Address TPRC 10_21_08.doc.
3. Hurlburt George F, Jeffrey Voas, Keith W Miller. "The
Internet of Things: a reality check." IT Professional.
2012; 14.3:56-59.
4. Chauhan Dipti, Sanjay Sharma. A survey on next
generation Internet Protocol: IPv6." Int. J Electron. Ind.
Eng.(IJEEE), ISSN 2. 2014; 2:125-128.
5. Tsuchiya Kazuaki, Hidemitsu Higuchi, Yoshifumi
Atarashi. Dual stack hosts using the" bump- in-the-
stack" technique (BIS). No. RFC 2767, 2000.
6. IEEE Std, "Wireless LAN Medium Access Control
(MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications: High-
speed Physical Layer in the 5 GHz Band, 16, 1999.
7. IEEE Std, “Wireless LAN Medium Access Control
(MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications:
Higher-Speed Physical Layer Extension in the 2.4 GHz
Band, 16, 1999.
8. Mazhelis Oleksiy et al. "Internet-of-things market,
value networks, and business models: State of the art
report." University of Jyvaskyla,
Department of Computer Science and Information
systems, Technical Reports TR-39.
9. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#ta
b=ipv6-adoption&tab=ipv6-adoption.
10. Bohlin, Erik, Sven Lindmark. "Incentives to innovate
with next generation networks." Communications and
Strategies. 2002; 48.4:97-117.
11. Chauhan Dipti, Jay Kumar Jain, Sanjay Sharma. "An
end-to-end header compression for multihop IPv6
tunnels with varying bandwidth." Eco- friendly
Computing and Communication Systems (ICECCS)
Fifth International Conference on. IEEE, 2016.
12. Chauhan Dipti, Sanjay Sharma. "Addressing the
Bandwidth issue in End-to-End Header Compression
over IPv6 tunneling Mechanism." IJCNIS, 2016; 7.9:
39.
13. Chauhan Dipti, Jay Kumar Jain, Sanjay Sharma.

~ 10 ~