Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Analysis

meshing Protocol stochastic variable 6 (IPv6) analytic thinkingOverviewprofit Protocol magnetic declination 6 (IPv6) is the b aligning generation of communications communications protocol define by InternetEngineering Task force (IETF) to replace the exiting IPv4 protocol. At present, the absolute legal age of Internet users atomic number 18 sedate employ IPv4 protocol, and given that or so of flow rate neting applications and net be relieve unmatchableself equipment run in IPv4 environments, the migration from IPv4 to IPv6 piece of asst be accomplished oernight. It is sure that the migration lead be a long-term process (it is forecasted that the process bequeath take 10 20 years). During the migration, IPv4 and IPv6 leave behind coexist in a homogeneous net profit. This migration process poses sunrise(prenominal) challenges on the passrs that be the center equipment in IP net profit. Traditional dispatchrs hatfult accommodate contemporary future m esh web topology with IPv4/v6 coexistence. The routers must be improved and upgraded so that they posterior reenforcement twain(prenominal) IPv4 and IPv6.Given that the cell nucleus router is very im carriageant and carries huge Internet crafts, it must be able to jump out IPv6 trans look at wire rate. It convey ASIC chip, exactly non softw be is apply to deport IPv6 pile processing. At the same time, it is very important that this subscribe pilet sacrifice any IPv4 transaction. afterward all, close of real occupations is IPv4. The core router must expand to view as IPv6 routing accedes and postulate to acquit IPv6 routing protocols, such as BGP4+, OSPFv3, ISISv6, RIPng and etc. It necessarily to obligate more or little migration strategy from IPv4 to IPv6, such as Tunnel, Dual Stack, Translation and etc. corresponding as many mesh topology technologies, prospering deployment of IPv6 relies on the deployment of the operators IPv6 net urinate. As whi zz core component in IPv6 net, IPv6 core router is key to earnings building, applications, death penalty and st index. At present, mainstream router vendors like Cisco and raetam announce that their routers gouge grow IPv6 while some traditional IT equipment manufactures, e pickyly those in Japan, think Internet upgrade ca apply by IPv6 allow for change the whole landscape of router grocery store, which brings real opportunities for them to enter router food market. From 2000 to 2002, Hitachi, necrotizing enterocolitis and Fujitsu announced IPv6-capable core router to gain some market sh atomic number 18 in new Internet network.It must be admitted that IPv6 is alleviate in the initial phase at present, which is reflected in the following aspects or so IPv6 network is in trial phase, the number of access users is low, carried IPv6 callings squirtt be comparable to IPv4, the interoper strength between IPv6 equipment still needs to be proved, and network engineers oerl eap in experience in epic-scale deployment and operation of IPv6 network. The lack of selective development and experience is one of important causes that defy some operators lack in confidence in IPv6 network deployment. Many operators take wait-and-see attitudes. In narrate to prove IPv6 router (e superfluously IPv6 core router), the obtain to IPv6, how ar they performed and interoperated, provide a realistic selective information basis for the operators to deploy IPv6 network and provide a credit entry for equipment manufactures to evaluate and improve their equipment, BII(capital of Red China Internet Institute) collaborate with 6TNet (IPv6 Telecom Trial Network) in China essayed IPv6 core routers from 4 vendors (Fujitsu, Hitachi, retem and necrotizing enterocolitis) in capital of Red China fromOctober to December 2002. BII performed protocol abidance, carrying out andinteroperability discharges. In these running games, we used the sort legal documents provided b y Agilent and get windd strong technical bear from Agilent.The render is non a comparative executing analyze in several(predicate) router vendors. The purpose is to keep in line the feasibility of IPv6 deployment. With this discharge, the interrogatory squad thinks that all SUT (system infra try out) has the ability to turn commercial IPv6 network and provide at a lower placelying IPv6 capabilities. They can bide IPv6 routing protocols, backup the send on of IPv6 entropygram at wire rate and provide interoperability between them. From perspectives of thoroughgoing(a) technology, the interrogatory police squad thinks the products carry been ready to deploy staple IPv6 core network..Brief Descriptions of analyseThe requirements for hardw be provided by the SUT (system d proclaim the stairs examine) atomic number 18 as followsIPv6-capable core routerOC48 SM ports ( some(prenominal) ports must be in distinguishable boards)Supports both FE ports and GE port s. The number of FE ports and GE ports is no less(prenominal) than 3Finally, all vendors basically fit out those requirements, although CX5210 provided by necrotizing enterocolitis doesnt run FE during the time of raiseing.The requirement for IPv6 capabilities provided by the SUT (system under(a) leaven) include comport of IPv6 forward in hardw be and give of related IPv6 routing protocols and migration strategy. Finally, all vendors experience our requirements as sh possess in the following hold oer.Company IPv6 hardw beDual Stack RIPng OSPFv3 BGP4+ IPv6 oer IPv4 send on TunnelFujitsu 9 9 9 9 9 9Hitachi 9 9 9 9 9 9retem 9 9 9 9 9 9necrotizing enterocolitis 9 9 9 9 9 9The SUT (system under examination) models and OS adaptations argon shown in the following bow.Company Model magnetic declinationFujitsu Geostream R920 E10V02L03C44Hitachi GR2000-20H S-9181-61 07-01 ROUTE-OS6 juniper bush M20 5.5R1.2NEC CX5210 02.0(2e) 45.08.00The render factors we used in the turn out are as followsAgilent Router proveer 900 strain Router attempter 5.1,Build 11.15. Agilent QA RobotVersion Router block outer 5.3,Build 5.2The IPv6 core router foot race is composed of three partsProtocol correctance prove, interoperability foot race and IPv6 achievement running play.Basic IPv6 Protocols and RIPngBasic IPv6 protocols include IPv6 Specification (RFC2460), ICMPv6 (RFC2463), inhabit Dis keepy (RFC2461), Stateless Autoconfiguration (RFC2462), Path MTU Dis leady (RFC1981), IPv6 compensate Architecture (RFC1884) and etc., which are basic capabilities provided by an IPv6 implementation.RIPng is delimit by RFC2080 and is the extension and expansion of RIPv2. Its basic capabilities are same as RIPv2. The routing information exchanged by RIPng can carry IPv6 regalees and affixes. RIPng runs on IPv6 network, uses multicasting address ff029 as term to assign routing information. RIPng is non compatible with RIPv2. RIP protocol is typically used in small network s and is not deployed in bighearted networks because of its scalability and performance, which is same in IPv6 networks.The turn up does not include basic IPv6 protocols and RIPng because we think both capabilities are close to basic and most preliminary capabilities that should be provided in an IPv6 router, these capabilities are employ and interoperated very well in the routers from 4 vendors, and the 4 tested routers cave in been tested publicly or non-publicly several times in incompatible occasions and provided good data. Therefore, we think it is unnecessary to make efforts to recall these work and we skipped this test and focused on more challenged test items.BGP4+ Protocol compliance trialAt present, the external gateway protocol used in the IPv4 network is BGP4. Its basic protocolsare defined in RFC1771. In enunciate to carry IPv6 network information in BGP4 updates, IETF has defined a special property multi-protocol BGP (MP-BGP), in addition called IPv6 NLRI ( Network Layer R apieceability Information) to exchange IPv6 routing information, which is not a new version of BGP protocol, nevertheless an extension to BGP4. The extension is familiarly called BGP4+, which is compatible with BGP4. mean to RFC2545 for its definition. foot race Purpose and Used StandardsPurpose To test the implementation of BGP4+ and align with related standards for SUT (System Under tally). The following standards are referred in the testBates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D. and Y. Rekhter, Multiprotocol telephone extension for BGP-4, RFC 2858, Jne 2000.Bates, T., Chandra, R., Chen, E., BGP Route Reflection An Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP, RFC2796, April 2000.Chandra, R. and J.Scudder, Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4, RFC 2842, may 2000.Dupont, F. and P. Marques, Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol character references for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing, RFC 2545, March 1999.Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, A B baffle Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) .Traina, P., McPherson, D., Scudd er, J., Autonomous System Confederations for BGP, RFC3065, February 2001. runnel Methods lone(prenominal) the tests are based on network topology emulation. One test port of legal document firstly turn upes network topology emulation, then executes pre-written scripts, interacts with the port of SUT, performs related BGP4+ protocol tests individually and separately test generates Passed/Failed record. The tests can be divided into active tests and passive tests. progressive test path the inspector is used to operate the state work of SUT and the correctness of message format while passive test means the tester is used to interfere with SUT victimization messages with errors. render Topology mental testing mover and SUT use two independent Fast Ethernet or Gigabit Ethernet pertainions. altogether BGP4+ runs on the Fast Ethernet or Gigabit Ethernet referions.The physical topology is as followsThe analytic topology is as follows shew Items and Descriptions of tryout Resu ltsThe BGP4+ protocol conformation test involves in the BGP multi-protocol extension, setup and transpose of BGP4+ IBGP and EBGP sessions, ability to happen IPv6 route updates, BGP4+ attached hop, starting point, MED, local p compose, AS_PATH, atom aggregation, community name and various properties, the ability of SUT to correctly process these properties, BGP4+ route reflector capability, BGP4+ federation capability.These tests can and ensure implementation of BGP4+protocol in SUT comply with the standard defined by RFC, and cant ensure SUT fully and boomingly deploy BGP4+ routes in commercial IPv6 network.The following diagram briefly describes the test results. Attached dodge 1 includes all test items, description and detailed results of BGP4+ conformance tests for 4 routers. The test items and descriptions are extracted from RFC2858, RFC2545, RFC2842, RFC2796, RFC3065 and draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-14.txt part.Model Failed test itemsFujitsu GeoStream R920 2Hitachi GR2000-20H 5 j uniper M20 1NEC CX5210 3 summary of campaign ResultsCapabilities not back upConfederationRoute reflector, CommunityFujitsus GeoStreamR920 of authoritative version does not support BGP4+ federation capability. In all BGP4+ test items it back up, the widely distributed performance is reasonably good. What needs to be improved is whole one item that is to support the migration of undefined property and handle interim duration.It is hoped to improve null porthole which cant support next hop at present.Hitachis GR2000-20H of current version supports all test items, and is tho product fully supporting BGP4+ protocols in the core routers from 3 Japanese companies. However, it needs to be improved in the following areas manipulation next-hop property of IBGP in BGP4+ protocol, victimisation AS_PATH properties to prevent from route loop, the ability of route reflector to detect ORIGINATOR_ID. At the same time, we launch in the interoperability test that GR2000-20H cant prepare non-physical direct-connection sessions with IBGP peering entities, which Hitachi needs to improve. It is hoped to add loopback address capability. junipers M20 passes all tests except one item excellently.NECs CX5210 of current version doesnt support BGP4+ route reflector and community properties. In all BGP4+ test items it support, the general performance is slightly good. However, it needs to be improved in handling BGP4+ federation AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE property. It is hoped to add null larboard configuration.Interoperability TestAs higher up mentioned, IPv6 is in initial phase of commercial deployment at present. A large amount of IPv6-capable network equipments and terminals are available. IPv6 network built by the operators doesnt still use the equipment provided by a vendor. In multi-vendor network environment, the interoperability between equipment is vital.The interoperability test is composed of BGP4+ interoperability test and OSPFv3 interoperability test. It should be n oted that special(prenominal) items in the interoperability test save cover some most common properties of BGP4+ and OSPFv3, and are not the interoperability tests of all properties of BGP4+ and OSPFv3.BGP4+ InteroperabilityEstablish IBGP SessionsTest Descriptions The test is to asseverate GR2000-20H, CX5210, R920,M20 and fully in use(p) iBGP connections that can be get to. summonsence RFC1771, RFC2545 and RFC2858.Test tramples GR2000-20H, CX5210, R920, M20 and SUT are committed as shown in the following diagram.4 routers are in a same autonomous domain and are inter affiliated apply IBGP protocol to form a full- lock IBGP connection. Test instrument and SUT are interconnected using EBGPconnection. Because GR2000-20H doesnt support IBGP across-router Session connection, we use a FE link to connect GR2000-20H to M20 to form a fully-meshed connection.Test ResultsWe substantiate whether iBGP sessions were ceremonious between GR2000-20H, CX5210, R920 and M20, and it was prove all connections were set up successfully.GR2000-20H CX5210 R920 M20GR2000-20H N/A OK OK OKCX5210 OK N/A OK OKR920 OK OK N/A OKM20 OK OK OK N/AEBGP- Route AdvertisementTest Descriptions To ramble GR2000-20H, CX5210, R920 and M20 can advertise routes properly in a fully meshed networks.References RFC1771, RFC2545 and RFC2858.Test tramples Establish network topology according to previous test, rear eBGP connection between tester and SUT, send vitamin C EBGP routes from tester to SUT.ResultsWe support whether GR2000-20H, CX5210 and R920 and M20 routing tables were correct, and it was plant all routing tables were correct.GR2000-20H CX5210 R920 M20GR2000-20H N/A OK OK OKCX5210 OK N/A OK OKR920 OK OK N/A OKM20 OK OK OK N/AEstablish EBGP SessionsTest Descriptions The test is to verify GR2000-20H, CX5210, R920 and M20 can establish a fully meshed eBGP connections.Reference RFC1771, RFC2545 and RFC2858.Test steps GR2000-20H, CX5210, R920 and M20 are connected as shown in the following diagram.Test DescriptionsWe verified whether EBGP sessions were formal between GR2000-20H, CX5210, R920 and M20, and it was effect all connections were realized successfully.GR2000-20H CX5210 R920 M20GR2000-20H N/A OK OK OKCX5210 OK N/A OK OKR920 OK OK N/A OKM20 OK OK OK N/AEBGP Route AdvertisementTest Descriptions To verify GR2000-20H, CX5210, R920 and M20 can advertise EBGP routes properly.References RFC1771, RFC2545 and RFC2858.Test steps Establish network topology according to previous tests, send routes from distributively router to all new(prenominal) routers.Test ResultsWe verified whether GR2000-20H, CX5210 and R920 and M20 routing tables were correct, and it was found all routing tables were correct.GR2000-20H CX5210 R920, M20rGR2000-20H N/A OK OK OKCX5210 OK N/A OK OKR920 OK OK N/A OKM20 OK OK OK N/AOSPFv3 InteroperabilityOSPF protocols supporting IPv6 is OSPFv3. OSPFv3 routing mechanism is basically same asOSPFv2. However, OSPFv2 relies primarily on IPv4, while OSP Fv3 makes many improvements in OSPFv2 and is not a simple extension, thus OSPFv3, whose corresponding protocol is RFC2740, runs on IPv6. For real ball applications, many operators regard OSPFv3 as a brand new protocol, besides its stability and maturity need to be encourage verified, so when IPv6 routing protocols are s elective, it tends to use IS-ISv6 (draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-02.txt), which is only a simple extension to IS-ISv4 (RFC1195) (2 TLVs re-defined) and does not make changes fully. However, it is sure the opinion is not authoritative and need to be proved.Because of the limitations of test instrument, It is required for SUT to provide carbonM Ethernet interface. As CX5210 does not support Ethernet interface at present, just M20, R920 and GR2000-20H were involved in the testing. However, it does not imply that CX5210 cant interoperate with former(a) 3 routers and has any problems with functions implementation.In the test, GR2000-20H is called SUT1 in short, M20 is called S UT2, and R920 is called SUT3.Establish OSPF Connections DR ElectionTest DescriptionsIn the initial status, set various OSPF priority levels for SUT1, SUT2, SUT3 and the test instrument (10, 8, 5, 0). Connect these equipments based on the network topology below.Verify SUT1, SUT2, SUT3 and test instrument to establish OSPFv3 adjacency and vote DR/BDR. later on DR/BDR is established properly, vomit up DR off the network, and check whether DR/BDR is established properly.Put off-net equipment on the network, and check whether DR/BDR is established properly.Change OSPF initialization priorities of SUT1, SUT2, SUT3 and test instrument, and implement new test from step 2. Repeat the tests for 4 times, and ensure from each one SUT and test instrument have one opportunity to be s choose as DR and BDR under the intial status.During the test, all SUTs are in the same OSPF Area 0.Reference RFC2740Test ResultsDuring the testing, all the OSPF adjacencys can be established between SUTs and DR, also BDR can be elected properly. After DR is off-line, BDR can be re-elected as DR and the one with sub-top priority bequeath be BDR. When off-line equipment is on-line again, no re-electing process occurs. All test results comply with the requirements in related standards.Exchange LSA DatabaseTest Descriptions Test instrument simulates an internal network with 4 routers connected, and sends the routing information to SUT. Then verify the routing information received by SUT DR from test instruments willing be sent to DR opposite correctly. identical as the previous test item, firstly SUT1 is used as DR, then SUT2, and final examly SUT3.Reference RFC2740Test ResultsDuring the testing, OSPF adjacency can be established properly between all SUTs. DR receiveLSA information from test instrument and properly send the information to DR early(a), which can also receive and process LSA information properly.IPv6 Performance TestThe major approach used for the performance testing was to send the IPv6 art with diametric software size of its and item QoS information, via SUT to the finale, and then by the tester measure the through dress, latent period and software system release of SUT in various topologies. For the IPv6 performance test, at that place are four vendors high-end IPv6 routers, with OC-48 POS ports on which throughput and response time will be measured, with IPv6 piece of ground sizes of 64 bytes, 128bytes, 256 bytes, 512 bytes, 1024 bytes, 1480 bytes and 1500 bytes. The performance in various of circumstances were measured, including IPv4/IPv6 mixed merchandises (IPv4 and IPv6 traffics with unlike ratio), IPv6 traffic with packet sizes mixtures, sponge software system size of its. Also the maximum routing table entry support and the performance on manually configured tunnels were verified. Most of the referred standards is extracted from RFC2544.At present, at that place are deficient applications for IPv6, and the number of users in the IPv6 network can not be compared to IPv4. The sum of maximum IPv6 of IX(Internet eXchage) traffics is lessthan dozens of Mbits/s. These traffics can be handled using a router refitted from a PC. Based on the circumstance, is it necessary to test the performance of OC48 ports ? Actually when the operators build IPv6 network and purchase IPv6 routers, todays IPv6 network is not under their call backation. Their networks should be able to deal with the changes and growth of IPv6 network next 5 7 years. In this sense, it is necessary for IPv6 core router to support the IPv6 traffic forwarding capacities at wire rate. Otherwise, what differences can be made between a real IPv6 router and a router refitted from a PC with installed BSD and Zebra ?The measurement of the number of routing table entry also meets the same situations. At present, therere around 300-400 entries in the IPv6 keystone router routing table, which cant comparedto the huge number of IPv4 (110,000130,000 rou tes). Secondly, IPv6 has drawn experience and lessons from IPv4 in externalise and address assignment. RIR only assigns the large block and fixed length IPv6 addresses to IPv6 operators, rather of the end users. To some extent, this can protect IPv6 routing tables from the explosive growth. The strict affix filtering mechanism was set on BGP4+ routers by most of IPv6 network administrators and the router only allows minor prefixes, such as /16, /24, /28, /32, /35 and etc. However, the experience of IPv4 inform us a lesson- Money Talks. In the fiercely warlike ages, it is very difficult for operators to reject users requirements. Under the conditions that IPv6 doesnt solve the problems of Multi-homing completely, it is possible that the network operators are required to broadcast users network prefixes into global IPv6 routing tables in revise to achieve Multi-homing applications. So far RIR has begun to assign /48 address fraction to IPv6 of IX independently, while it is sugg ested IX doesnt broadcast the addresses. Thirdly, in many IPv6 networks, there are at least two IPv6 addresses separates, from 6BONE(3ffe/16) and RIR(2001/16) respectively, and maybe more prefixes will appear in the future. Fourthly, RIR cant ensure IPV6 addresses appoint to IPv6 operators are from a continuous address block. Current assignment policy indicates that /32 addresses of IPv6 designate to operators can be continuously extended to /29. If new addresses are raise required, they must be assigned to discontinuous address blocks and result in the growth of the number of routing tables. To sum up, the test team suggests that the number of IPv6 routing tables supported by the router should be no less than that of IPv4 routing tables, since it is very difficult to bode the increasing number of routing tables of IPv6 core network right now.In current IPv6 networks, commercial IPv6 network and IPv6 trial network (6BONE) are interlaced without a explicit boundary between them. A packet from commercial IPv6 network may go through many IPv6 trial network to begin with arriving at another IPv6 network. The network administrators of many trial networks are not regarded as a operators, but a players It is pretty unstable of their networks, with routers fix very frequently. In the meantime, the networks advertise global IPv6 routes to all peers, making their own IPv6 network to implement transit. It causes the instability of current IPv6 of BGP routes, and thus it is required the capabilities of IPv6 routers cover the flapping and convergence properly, which should be included in this test, however receivable to limited test time frame, it is a pity the test team has to give up these tests.The network topology used for the performance test is shown as followingIdeally, the test topology should be as following, so that the packet forwarding capability of the routers in real- valet de chambre network environment is shown completely. enthral one traffic from a source port of the tester, via multiple ports of the router to the destination ports of tester, measure the performance of the router. However as the vendors cant provide abounding OC48 ports, the test team can only perform the test by simply sending packets from one port and receiving packets form another port. In this sense, this test environment cant simulate completely the performance of the router in the real-world network environment.The Measurement of Throughput and rotational latency with antithetical IPv6 mailboats sizes at OC-48 POS portTest Descriptions To test the maximum IPv6 packet forwarding rate of SUT with zero packet overtaking with various IPv6 packet sizes.Test Methods charge IPv6 packets, via SUT to the destination ports of the tester, which measures the packet rate of SUT according to the received IPv6 packets. Set the initial offered load to 2%, and If no packet loss occurs, increase the offered load to 100% and arrogate the test. If packet loss occ urs, decrease the offered load to (100%+2%)/2=51%, repeat the test againIn a binary explore manner, continue to increase or decrease the offered load in consequent iterations until the difference in offered load between successful and failed tests is less than the closure for the test. This is the zero-loss throughput rate.Traffic forwarding mode full duplex. Offered Packet type IPv6Offered Packet size (bytes) 64 128 256 512 1024 1480 1500 Test duration of each packet type(s) 5Bandwidth colonization (%) 0.1 Line BER tolerance (10_) -10The results are as followsSustainable Throughput of OC-48 POS demeanor105.00%100.00%95.00%90.00%85.00%80.00%75.00%70.00%65.00%60.00%55.00%50.00%64 128 256 512 1024 1480 1500bytes bytes bytes bytes bytes bytes bytesTest Packets size of itAverage latency (us) at covariant Test Packets coat1009080706050403020100Test Packets SizeHitachiNECFujistu JuniperHitachi NECFujistu JuniperNote more or less inherent latency of testerBefore we perform tests, we must involve intrinsic latency of tester. The following table indicates inherent latency of tester for antithetic test packet sizes when sending 100% offered load.Inherent latency of tester (100% offered load)Packet Size (bytes) 64 128 256 512 1024 1480 1500Average Inherent 2.74 2.69 2.69 2.65 2.65 2.60 2.60Latency (us)From the in a higher place, the inherent latency of tester under dissimilar packet sizes is active 2.7us. Compared to the tens of us of SUTs latency, there are not satisfying impacts on the test results. In addition, the impact of inherent latency is fair to these 4 SUTs. forwarding Performance of IPv4/IPv6 Packets on OC48 user interfacesTest Descriptions To verify the performance of SUT to forward IPv4/IPv6 packets in offered packets sizes. The test requires SUT to support IPv4/IPv6 dual protocol stacks.Test Methods The tester sends IPv4 and IPv6 traffic simultaneously in full duplex configuration, via SUT to the destination port, measure the throughput and latency with various ratio of IPv4 and IPv6 traffic. Send traffic with 50% of IPv4 and 50% of IPv6 and 100% offered load first time. If packet loss occurs, decrease the offered load in 5% resolution until the difference in offered load between successful and failed tests is less than the resolution for the test. This is the zero-loss throughput rate. At the same time, measure the latency at maximum forwarding rate. Then change the ratio of IPv4 and IPv6 traffic to test again. Increase continuously the proportion of IPv6 traffic to simulate the change of traffic characteristics in the real-world network transition.Test DescriptionsOffered load (%) initial100% with 5% increment and final 0 Offered packet types IPv6 piece of IPv4 and IPv6 traffic 50501090 (IPv4IPv6) Offered packet size (bytes) 62 512 1518Test duration of each packet size(s) 5 The test results are as followsSustainable throughput of OC-48 POS port at packet size 64 bytes with divers(prenominal) dowry ofIPv4 and IPv6 trafficSustainable Throughput of OC-48 POS Port at Packet Size 64 bytes with different component part of IPv4 and IPv6 Traffic105%100% 95% 90%85% Hitachi80% NEC75% Fujistu70% Juniper65% 60% 55% 50%50/50 40/60 30/70 20/80 10/90IPv4/IPv6 Test Packets character (IPv4/IPv6)Sustainable throughput of OC-48 POS port at packet size 512 bytes with different luck of IPv4 and IPv6 trafficSustainable Throughput of OC-48 POS Port at Packet Size 512bytes with different part of IPv4 and IPv6 Traffic105%100% 95% 90%85% Hitachi80% NEC75% Fujistu70% Juniper65% 60% 55% 50%50/50 40/60 30/70 20/80 10/90IPv4/IPv6 Test Packets share (IPv4/IPv6)Sustainable throughput of OC-48 POS port at packet size 1518 bytes with different per centum of IPv4 and IPv6 trafficSustainable Throughput of OC-48 POS Port at Packet Size 1518 bytes with different parting of IPv4 and IPv6 Traffic105%100% 95% 90%85% Hitachi80% NEC75% Fujistu70% Juniper65% 60% 55% 50%50/50 40/60 30/70 20/80 10/90IPv4/IPv6 Test Packets Percen tage (IPv4/IPv6)Average latency (us) at test packets size 64 bytes with different dowery of IPv4 and IPv6 trafficAverage Latency (us) at Test Packets Size 64 bytes with different Percentage of IPv4 and IPv6 Traffic100908070605040302010050/50 40/6 30/70 20/80 10/90IPv4/IPv6 Test Packets Percentage (IPv4/IPv6)HitachiNECFujistu JuniperAverage latency (us) at test packets size 512 bytes with different pct of IPv4 and IPv6 trafficAverage Latency (us) at Test Packets Size 512 bytes with Different Percentage of IPv4 and IPv6 Traffic100908070605040302010050/50 40/60 30/70 20/80 10/90IPv4/IPv6 Test Packets Percentage (IPv4/IPv6)HitachiNECFujistu JuniperAverage latency (us) at test packets size 1518 bytes with different portion of IPv4 and IPv6 trafficAverage Latency (us) at Test Packets Size 1518 bytes withDifferent Percentage of IPv4 and IPv6 Traffic100908070605040302010050/50 40/60 30/70 20/80 10/90IPv4/IPv6 Test Packets Percentage (IPv4/IPv6)HitachiNECFujistu JuniperIPv6 over IPv4 Confi gured Tunneling Performance of OC-48 POS PortTest Description Tunneling technology is an good means to connect separate IPv6 networks via IPv4 dorsum. This item is to verify the performance of SUT when SUT capsules IPv6 data packets into IPv4 payload and forwards the packets.Test Method The tester sends IPv6 data packets to SUT, and configures an IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel between SUT and the tester. Thus after SUT receives pure IPv6 packets from the tester, it will capsulate it into IPv4 packet payload, and send IPv6 packets to destination over IPv4 network. The tester analyzes the packets forwared by the SUT at receiving end, calculates the throughput of SUT for different sizes of packets under the IPv6 over IPv4 configured tunnel. Test ResultsIPv6 packet size 512Destination address of sending IPv6 data packets 3FFE0042/64Bandwidth range of sending IPv6 traInternet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) AnalysisInternet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) AnalysisOverviewInternet Protocol version 6 (IPv6 ) is the next generation of protocol defined by InternetEngineering Task force (IETF) to replace the exiting IPv4 protocol. At present, the majority of Internet users are still using IPv4 protocol, and given that most of current networking applications and network equipment run in IPv4 environments, the migration from IPv4 to IPv6 cant be accomplished overnight. It is foreseeable that the migration will be a long-term process (it is forecasted that the process will take 10 20 years). During the migration, IPv4 and IPv6 will coexist in a same network. This migration process poses new challenges on the routers that are the core equipment in IP network. Traditional routers cant accommodate new future network with IPv4/v6 coexistence. The routers must be improved and upgraded so that they can support both IPv4 and IPv6.Given that the core router is very important and carries huge Internet traffics, it must be able to support IPv6 forwarding at wire rate. It means ASIC chip, but not so ftware is used to support IPv6 packet processing. At the same time, it is very important that this support cant sacrifice any IPv4 performance. After all, most of current traffics is IPv4. The core router must expand to support IPv6 routing tables and needs to support IPv6 routing protocols, such as BGP4+, OSPFv3, ISISv6, RIPng and etc. It needs to support some migration strategy from IPv4 to IPv6, such as Tunnel, Dual Stack, Translation and etc.Same as many network technologies, successful deployment of IPv6 relies on the deployment of the operators IPv6 network. As one core component in IPv6 network, IPv6 core router is key to network building, applications, performance and stability. At present, mainstream router vendors like Cisco and Juniper announce that their routers can support IPv6 while some traditional IT equipment manufactures, especially those in Japan, think Internet upgrade caused by IPv6 will change the whole landscape of router market, which brings significant oppor tunities for them to enter router market. From 2000 to 2002, Hitachi, NEC and Fujitsu announced IPv6-capable core router to gain some market share in new Internet network.It must be admitted that IPv6 is still in the initial phase at present, which is reflected in the following aspects most IPv6 network is in trial phase, the number of access users is low, carried IPv6 traffics cant be comparable to IPv4, the interoperability between IPv6 equipment still needs to be proved, and network engineers lack in experience in large-scale deployment and operation of IPv6 network. The lack of data and experience is one of important causes that make some operators lack in confidence in IPv6 network deployment. Many operators take wait-and-see attitudes. In tack together to prove IPv6 router (especially IPv6 core router), the support to IPv6, how are they performed and interoperated, provide a hard-nosed data basis for the operators to deploy IPv6 network and provide a reference for equipment m anufactures to evaluate and improve their equipment, BII(Beijing Internet Institute) collaborate with 6TNet (IPv6 Telecom Trial Network) in China tested IPv6 core routers from 4 vendors (Fujitsu, Hitachi, Juniper and NEC) in Beijing fromOctober to December 2002. BII performed protocol conformance, performance andinteroperability tests. In these tests, we used the test instruments provided by Agilent and received strong technical support from Agilent.The test is not a comparative performance test in different router vendors. The purpose is to verify the feasibility of IPv6 deployment. With this test, the test team thinks that all SUT (system under test) has the ability to support commercial IPv6 network and provide basic IPv6 capabilities. They can support IPv6 routing protocols, support the forwarding of IPv6 datagram at wire rate and provide interoperability between them. From perspectives of pure technology, the test team thinks the products have been ready to deploy basic IPv6 co re network..Brief Descriptions of TestThe requirements for hardware provided by the SUT (system under test) are as followsIPv6-capable core routerOC48 SM ports (both ports must be in different boards)Supports both FE ports and GE ports. The number of FE ports and GE ports is no less than 3Finally, all vendors basically meet those requirements, although CX5210 provided by NEC doesnt support FE during the time of testing.The requirement for IPv6 capabilities provided by the SUT (system under test) include support of IPv6 forwarding in hardware and support of related IPv6 routing protocols and migration strategy. Finally, all vendors meet our requirements as shown in the following table.Company IPv6 hardwareDual Stack RIPng OSPFv3 BGP4+ IPv6 over IPv4forwarding TunnelFujitsu 9 9 9 9 9 9Hitachi 9 9 9 9 9 9Juniper 9 9 9 9 9 9NEC 9 9 9 9 9 9The SUT (system under test) models and OS versions are shown in the following table.Company Model VersionFujitsu Geostream R920 E10V02L03C44Hitachi GR 2000-20H S-9181-61 07-01 ROUTE-OS6Juniper M20 5.5R1.2NEC CX5210 02.0(2e) 45.08.00The test instruments we used in the test are as followsAgilent Router inspector 900Version Router Tester 5.1,Build 11.15. Agilent QA RobotVersion Router Tester 5.3,Build 5.2The IPv6 core router test is composed of three partsProtocol conformance test, interoperability test and IPv6 performance test.Basic IPv6 Protocols and RIPngBasic IPv6 protocols include IPv6 Specification (RFC2460), ICMPv6 (RFC2463), dwell Discovery (RFC2461), Stateless Autoconfiguration (RFC2462), Path MTU Discovery (RFC1981), IPv6 address Architecture (RFC1884) and etc., which are basic capabilities provided by an IPv6 implementation.RIPng is defined by RFC2080 and is the extension and expansion of RIPv2. Its basic capabilities are same as RIPv2. The routing information exchanged by RIPng can carry IPv6 addresses and prefixes. RIPng runs on IPv6 network, uses multicasting address ff029 as destination to transfer routing informati on. RIPng is not compatible with RIPv2. RIP protocol is typically used in small networks and is not deployed in large networks because of its scalability and performance, which is same in IPv6 networks.The test does not include basic IPv6 protocols and RIPng because we think both capabilities are most basic and most preliminary capabilities that should be provided in an IPv6 router, these capabilities are implement and interoperated very well in the routers from 4 vendors, and the 4 tested routers have been tested publicly or non-publicly several times in different occasions and provided good data. Therefore, we think it is unnecessary to make efforts to repeat these work and we skipped this test and focused on more challenged test items.BGP4+ Protocol conformance TestAt present, the external gateway protocol used in the IPv4 network is BGP4. Its basic protocolsare defined in RFC1771. In order to carry IPv6 network information in BGP4 updates, IETF has defined a special property multi-protocol BGP (MP-BGP), also called IPv6 NLRI (Network Layer Reachability Information) to exchange IPv6 routing information, which is not a new version of BGP protocol, but an extension to BGP4. The extension is generally called BGP4+, which is compatible with BGP4. Refer to RFC2545 for its definition.Test Purpose and Used StandardsPurpose To test the implementation of BGP4+ and conform with related standards for SUT (System Under Test). The following standards are referred in the testBates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D. and Y. Rekhter, Multiprotocol Extension for BGP-4, RFC 2858, Jne 2000.Bates, T., Chandra, R., Chen, E., BGP Route Reflection An Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP, RFC2796, April 2000.Chandra, R. and J.Scudder, Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4, RFC 2842, may 2000.Dupont, F. and P. Marques, Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing, RFC 2545, March 1999.Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) .Traina, P., McPherson, D., Scudder, J., Autonomous System Confederations for BGP, RFC3065, February 2001.Test MethodsAll the tests are based on topology emulation. One test port of instrument firstly establishes network topology emulation, then executes pre-written scripts, interacts with the port of SUT, performs related BGP4+ protocol tests individually and each test generates Passed/Failed record. The tests can be divided into active tests and passive tests. lively test means the tester is used to verify the state work of SUT and the correctness of message format while passive test means the tester is used to interfere with SUT using messages with errors.Test TopologyTest instrument and SUT use two independent Fast Ethernet or Gigabit Ethernet connections. All BGP4+ runs on the Fast Ethernet or Gigabit Ethernet connections.The physical topology is as followsThe consistent topology is as followsTest Items and Descriptions of Test ResultsThe BGP4+ protocol conformance test involves in the BGP multi-proto col extension, setup and transfer of BGP4+ IBGP and EBGP sessions, ability to receive IPv6 route updates, BGP4+ next hop, starting point, MED, local preference, AS_PATH, atom aggregation, community name and various properties, the ability of SUT to correctly process these properties, BGP4+ route reflector capability, BGP4+ federation capability.These tests can only ensure implementation of BGP4+protocol in SUT comply with the standard defined by RFC, and cant ensure SUT fully and successfully deploy BGP4+ routes in commercial IPv6 network.The following diagram briefly describes the test results. Attached table 1 includes all test items, description and detailed results of BGP4+ conformance tests for 4 routers. The test items and descriptions are extracted from RFC2858, RFC2545, RFC2842, RFC2796, RFC3065 and draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-14.txt part.Model Failed test itemsFujitsu GeoStream R920 2Hitachi GR2000-20H 5Juniper M20 1NEC CX5210 3Analysis of Test ResultsCapabilities not supportedConf ederationRoute reflector, CommunityFujitsus GeoStreamR920 of current version does not support BGP4+ federation capability. In all BGP4+ test items it supported, the general performance is fairly good. What needs to be improved is only one item that is to support the migration of undefined property and handle interim duration.It is hoped to improve null interface which cant support next hop at present.Hitachis GR2000-20H of current version supports all test items, and is only product fully supporting BGP4+ protocols in the core routers from 3 Japanese companies. However, it needs to be improved in the following areas handling next-hop property of IBGP in BGP4+ protocol, using AS_PATH properties to prevent from route loop, the ability of route reflector to detect ORIGINATOR_ID. At the same time, we found in the interoperability test that GR2000-20H cant establish non-physical direct-connection sessions with IBGP peering entities, which Hitachi needs to improve. It is hoped to add loop back address capability.Junipers M20 passes all tests except one item excellently.NECs CX5210 of current version doesnt support BGP4+ route reflector and community properties. In all BGP4+ test items it supported, the general performance is fairly good. However, it needs to be improved in handling BGP4+ federation AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE property. It is hoped to add null interface configuration.Interoperability TestAs above mentioned, IPv6 is in initial phase of commercial deployment at present. A large amount of IPv6-capable network equipments and terminals are available. IPv6 network built by the operators doesnt only use the equipment provided by a vendor. In multi-vendor network environment, the interoperability between equipment is vital.The interoperability test is composed of BGP4+ interoperability test and OSPFv3 interoperability test. It should be noted that specific items in the interoperability test only cover some most common properties of BGP4+ and OSPFv3, and are not the in teroperability tests of all properties of BGP4+ and OSPFv3.BGP4+ InteroperabilityEstablish IBGP SessionsTest Descriptions The test is to verify GR2000-20H, CX5210, R920,M20 and fully meshed iBGP connections that can be established.Reference RFC1771, RFC2545 and RFC2858.Test steps GR2000-20H, CX5210, R920, M20 and SUT are connected as shown in the following diagram.4 routers are in a same autonomous domain and are interconnected using IBGP protocol to form a full-meshed IBGP connection. Test instrument and SUT are interconnected using EBGPconnection. Because GR2000-20H doesnt support IBGP across-router Session connection, we use a FE link to connect GR2000-20H to M20 to form a fully-meshed connection.Test ResultsWe verified whether iBGP sessions were established between GR2000-20H, CX5210, R920 and M20, and it was found all connections were set up successfully.GR2000-20H CX5210 R920 M20GR2000-20H N/A OK OK OKCX5210 OK N/A OK OKR920 OK OK N/A OKM20 OK OK OK N/AEBGP- Route Advertisemen tTest Descriptions To verify GR2000-20H, CX5210, R920 and M20 can advertise routes properly in a fully meshed networks.References RFC1771, RFC2545 and RFC2858.Test steps Establish network topology according to previous test, establish eBGP connection between tester and SUT, send 100 EBGP routes from tester to SUT.ResultsWe verified whether GR2000-20H, CX5210 and R920 and M20 routing tables were correct, and it was found all routing tables were correct.GR2000-20H CX5210 R920 M20GR2000-20H N/A OK OK OKCX5210 OK N/A OK OKR920 OK OK N/A OKM20 OK OK OK N/AEstablish EBGP SessionsTest Descriptions The test is to verify GR2000-20H, CX5210, R920 and M20 can establish a fully meshed eBGP connections.Reference RFC1771, RFC2545 and RFC2858.Test steps GR2000-20H, CX5210, R920 and M20 are connected as shown in the following diagram.Test DescriptionsWe verified whether EBGP sessions were established between GR2000-20H, CX5210, R920 and M20, and it was found all connections were established success fully.GR2000-20H CX5210 R920 M20GR2000-20H N/A OK OK OKCX5210 OK N/A OK OKR920 OK OK N/A OKM20 OK OK OK N/AEBGP Route AdvertisementTest Descriptions To verify GR2000-20H, CX5210, R920 and M20 can advertise EBGP routes properly.References RFC1771, RFC2545 and RFC2858.Test steps Establish network topology according to previous tests, send routes from each router to all other routers.Test ResultsWe verified whether GR2000-20H, CX5210 and R920 and M20 routing tables were correct, and it was found all routing tables were correct.GR2000-20H CX5210 R920, M20rGR2000-20H N/A OK OK OKCX5210 OK N/A OK OKR920 OK OK N/A OKM20 OK OK OK N/AOSPFv3 InteroperabilityOSPF protocols supporting IPv6 is OSPFv3. OSPFv3 routing mechanism is basically same asOSPFv2. However, OSPFv2 relies primarily on IPv4, while OSPFv3 makes many improvements in OSPFv2 and is not a simple extension, thus OSPFv3, whose corresponding protocol is RFC2740, runs on IPv6. For real world applications, many operators regard OSPFv3 as a brand new protocol, also its stability and maturity need to be further verified, so when IPv6 routing protocols are selected, it tends to use IS-ISv6 (draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-02.txt), which is only a simple extension to IS-ISv4 (RFC1195) (2 TLVs re-defined) and does not make changes fully. However, it is sure the opinion is not authoritative and need to be proved.Because of the limitations of test instrument, It is required for SUT to provide 100M Ethernet interface. As CX5210 does not support Ethernet interface at present, just M20, R920 and GR2000-20H were involved in the testing. However, it does not imply that CX5210 cant interoperate with other 3 routers and has any problems with functions implementation.In the test, GR2000-20H is called SUT1 in short, M20 is called SUT2, and R920 is called SUT3.Establish OSPF Connections DR ElectionTest DescriptionsIn the initial status, set different OSPF priority levels for SUT1, SUT2, SUT3 and the test instrument (10, 8, 5, 0). Connect these equipments based on the network topology below.Verify SUT1, SUT2, SUT3 and test instrument to establish OSPFv3 adjacency and vote DR/BDR.After DR/BDR is established properly, put DR off the network, and check whether DR/BDR is established properly.Put off-net equipment on the network, and check whether DR/BDR is established properly.Change OSPF initialization priorities of SUT1, SUT2, SUT3 and test instrument, and implement new test from step 2. Repeat the tests for 4 times, and ensure each SUT and test instrument have one opportunity to be selected as DR and BDR under the intial status.During the test, all SUTs are in the same OSPF Area 0.Reference RFC2740Test ResultsDuring the testing, all the OSPF adjacencys can be established between SUTs and DR, also BDR can be elected properly. After DR is off-line, BDR can be re-elected as DR and the one with sub-top priority will be BDR. When off-line equipment is on-line again, no re-electing process occurs. All test results comply wi th the requirements in related standards.Exchange LSA DatabaseTest Descriptions Test instrument simulates an internal network with 4 routers connected, and sends the routing information to SUT. Then verify the routing information received by SUT DR from test instruments will be sent to DR Other correctly. Same as the previous test item, firstly SUT1 is used as DR, then SUT2, and finally SUT3.Reference RFC2740Test ResultsDuring the testing, OSPF adjacency can be established properly between all SUTs. DR receiveLSA information from test instrument and properly send the information to DR Other, which can also receive and process LSA information properly.IPv6 Performance TestThe major approach used for the performance testing was to send the IPv6 traffic with different packet sizes and specific QoS information, via SUT to the destination, and then by the tester measure the throughput, latency and packet loss of SUT in various topologies. For the IPv6 performance test, there are four ven dors high-end IPv6 routers, with OC-48 POS ports on which throughput and latency will be measured, with IPv6 packet sizes of 64 bytes, 128bytes, 256 bytes, 512 bytes, 1024 bytes, 1480 bytes and 1500 bytes. The performance in various of circumstances were measured, including IPv4/IPv6 mixed traffics (IPv4 and IPv6 traffics with different ratio), IPv6 traffic with packet sizes mixtures, wipe Packet Sizes. Also the maximum routing table entry supported and the performance on manually configured tunnels were verified. Most of the referred standards is extracted from RFC2544.At present, there are deficient applications for IPv6, and the number of users in the IPv6 network can not be compared to IPv4. The sum of maximum IPv6 of IX(Internet eXchage) traffics is lessthan dozens of Mbits/s. These traffics can be handled using a router refitted from a PC. Based on the circumstance, is it necessary to test the performance of OC48 ports ? Actually when the operators build IPv6 network and purc hase IPv6 routers, todays IPv6 network is not under their consideration. Their networks should be able to deal with the changes and growth of IPv6 network next 5 7 years. In this sense, it is necessary for IPv6 core router to support the IPv6 traffic forwarding capacities at wire rate. Otherwise, what differences can be made between a real IPv6 router and a router refitted from a PC with installed BSD and Zebra ?The measurement of the number of routing table entry also meets the same situations. At present, therere around 300-400 entries in the IPv6 backbone router routing table, which cant comparedto the huge number of IPv4 (110,000130,000 routes). Secondly, IPv6 has drawn experience and lessons from IPv4 in inclination and address assignment. RIR only assigns the large block and fixed length IPv6 addresses to IPv6 operators, instead of the end users. To some extent, this can protect IPv6 routing tables from the explosive growth. The strict prefix filtering mechanism was set on BGP4+ routers by most of IPv6 network administrators and the router only allows minor prefixes, such as /16, /24, /28, /32, /35 and etc. However, the experience of IPv4 instill us a lesson- Money Talks. In the fiercely agonistic ages, it is very difficult for operators to reject users requirements. Under the conditions that IPv6 doesnt solve the problems of Multi-homing completely, it is possible that the network operators are required to broadcast users network prefixes into global IPv6 routing tables in order to achieve Multi-homing applications. So far RIR has begun to assign /48 address segment to IPv6 of IX independently, while it is suggested IX doesnt broadcast the addresses. Thirdly, in many IPv6 networks, there are at least two IPv6 addresses segments, from 6BONE(3ffe/16) and RIR(2001/16) respectively, and maybe more prefixes will appear in the future. Fourthly, RIR cant ensure IPV6 addresses assigned to IPv6 operators are from a continuous address block. Current assignme nt policy indicates that /32 addresses of IPv6 assigned to operators can be continuously extended to /29. If new addresses are further required, they must be assigned to discontinuous address blocks and result in the growth of the number of routing tables. To sum up, the test team suggests that the number of IPv6 routing tables supported by the router should be no less than that of IPv4 routing tables, since it is very difficult to opine the increasing number of routing tables of IPv6 core network right now.In current IPv6 networks, commercial IPv6 network and IPv6 trial network (6BONE) are interlaced without a explicit boundary between them. A packet from commercial IPv6 network may go through many IPv6 trial network ahead arriving at another IPv6 network. The network administrators of many trial networks are not regarded as a operators, but a players It is pretty unstable of their networks, with routers reset very frequently. In the meantime, the networks advertise global IPv6 r outes to all peers, making their own IPv6 network to implement transit. It causes the instability of current IPv6 of BGP routes, and thus it is required the capabilities of IPv6 routers cover the flapping and convergence properly, which should be included in this test, however repayable to limited test time frame, it is a pity the test team has to give up these tests.The network topology used for the performance test is shown as followingIdeally, the test topology should be as following, so that the packet forwarding capability of the routers in real-world network environment is shown completely.Send one traffic from a source port of the tester, via multiple ports of the router to the destination ports of tester, measure the performance of the router. However as the vendors cant provide adequate OC48 ports, the test team can only perform the test by simply sending packets from one port and receiving packets form another port. In this sense, this test environment cant simulate comp letely the performance of the router in the real-world network environment.The Measurement of Throughput and Latency with Different IPv6 Packets Sizes at OC-48 POS portTest Descriptions To test the maximum IPv6 packet forwarding rate of SUT with zero packet loss with different IPv6 packet sizes.Test Methods Send IPv6 packets, via SUT to the destination ports of the tester, which measures the packet rate of SUT according to the received IPv6 packets. Set the initial offered load to 2%, and If no packet loss occurs, increase the offered load to 100% and repeat the test. If packet loss occurs, decrease the offered load to (100%+2%)/2=51%, repeat the test againIn a binary hunt club manner, continue to increase or decrease the offered load in succeeding iterations until the difference in offered load between successful and failed tests is less than the resolution for the test. This is the zero-loss throughput rate.Traffic forwarding mode full duplex. Offered Packet type IPv6Offered Pac ket size (bytes) 64 128 256 512 1024 1480 1500 Test duration of each packet type(s) 5Bandwidth resolution (%) 0.1 Line BER tolerance (10_) -10The results are as followsSustainable Throughput of OC-48 POS Port105.00%100.00%95.00%90.00%85.00%80.00%75.00%70.00%65.00%60.00%55.00%50.00%64 128 256 512 1024 1480 1500bytes bytes bytes bytes bytes bytes bytesTest Packets SizeAverage Latency (us) at shifting Test Packets Size1009080706050403020100Test Packets SizeHitachiNECFujistu JuniperHitachi NECFujistu JuniperNote just rough inherent latency of testerBefore we perform tests, we must consider intrinsic latency of tester. The following table indicates inherent latency of tester for different test packet sizes when sending 100% offered load.Inherent latency of tester (100% offered load)Packet Size (bytes) 64 128 256 512 1024 1480 1500Average Inherent 2.74 2.69 2.69 2.65 2.65 2.60 2.60Latency (us)From the above, the inherent latency of tester under different packet sizes is about 2.7us. Co mpared to the tens of us of SUTs latency, there are not significant impacts on the test results. In addition, the impact of inherent latency is fair to these 4 SUTs. furtherance Performance of IPv4/IPv6 Packets on OC48 PortsTest Descriptions To verify the performance of SUT to forward IPv4/IPv6 packets in offered packets sizes. The test requires SUT to support IPv4/IPv6 dual protocol stacks.Test Methods The tester sends IPv4 and IPv6 traffic simultaneously in full duplex configuration, via SUT to the destination port, measure the throughput and latency with various ratio of IPv4 and IPv6 traffic. Send traffic with 50% of IPv4 and 50% of IPv6 and 100% offered load first time. If packet loss occurs, decrease the offered load in 5% resolution until the difference in offered load between successful and failed tests is less than the resolution for the test. This is the zero-loss throughput rate. At the same time, measure the latency at maximum forwarding rate. Then change the ratio of IP v4 and IPv6 traffic to test again. Increase continuously the proportion of IPv6 traffic to simulate the change of traffic characteristics in the real-world network transition.Test DescriptionsOffered load (%) initial100% with 5% increment and final 0 Offered packet types IPv6Percentage of IPv4 and IPv6 traffic 50501090 (IPv4IPv6) Offered packet size (bytes) 62 512 1518Test duration of each packet size(s) 5 The test results are as followsSustainable throughput of OC-48 POS port at packet size 64 bytes with different percentage ofIPv4 and IPv6 trafficSustainable Throughput of OC-48 POS Port at Packet Size 64 bytes with different Percentage of IPv4 and IPv6 Traffic105%100% 95% 90%85% Hitachi80% NEC75% Fujistu70% Juniper65% 60% 55% 50%50/50 40/60 30/70 20/80 10/90IPv4/IPv6 Test Packets Percentage (IPv4/IPv6)Sustainable throughput of OC-48 POS port at packet size 512 bytes with different percentage of IPv4 and IPv6 trafficSustainable Throughput of OC-48 POS Port at Packet Size 512bytes w ith different Percentage of IPv4 and IPv6 Traffic105%100% 95% 90%85% Hitachi80% NEC75% Fujistu70% Juniper65% 60% 55% 50%50/50 40/60 30/70 20/80 10/90IPv4/IPv6 Test Packets Percentage (IPv4/IPv6)Sustainable throughput of OC-48 POS port at packet size 1518 bytes with different percentage of IPv4 and IPv6 trafficSustainable Throughput of OC-48 POS Port at Packet Size 1518 bytes with different Percentage of IPv4 and IPv6 Traffic105%100% 95% 90%85% Hitachi80% NEC75% Fujistu70% Juniper65% 60% 55% 50%50/50 40/60 30/70 20/80 10/90IPv4/IPv6 Test Packets Percentage (IPv4/IPv6)Average latency (us) at test packets size 64 bytes with different percentage of IPv4 and IPv6 trafficAverage Latency (us) at Test Packets Size 64 bytes withDifferent Percentage of IPv4 and IPv6 Traffic100908070605040302010050/50 40/6 30/70 20/80 10/90IPv4/IPv6 Test Packets Percentage (IPv4/IPv6)HitachiNECFujistu JuniperAverage latency (us) at test packets size 512 bytes with different percentage of IPv4 and IPv6 trafficA verage Latency (us) at Test Packets Size 512 bytes with Different Percentage of IPv4 and IPv6 Traffic100908070605040302010050/50 40/60 30/70 20/80 10/90IPv4/IPv6 Test Packets Percentage (IPv4/IPv6)HitachiNECFujistu JuniperAverage latency (us) at test packets size 1518 bytes with different percentage of IPv4 and IPv6 trafficAverage Latency (us) at Test Packets Size 1518 bytes withDifferent Percentage of IPv4 and IPv6 Traffic100908070605040302010050/50 40/60 30/70 20/80 10/90IPv4/IPv6 Test Packets Percentage (IPv4/IPv6)HitachiNECFujistu JuniperIPv6 over IPv4 Configured Tunneling Performance of OC-48 POS PortTest Description Tunneling technology is an strong means to connect separate IPv6 networks via IPv4 backbone. This item is to verify the performance of SUT when SUT encapsulates IPv6 data packets into IPv4 payload and forwards the packets.Test Method The tester sends IPv6 data packets to SUT, and configures an IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel between SUT and the tester. Thus after SUT receiv es pure IPv6 packets from the tester, it will encapsulate it into IPv4 packet payload, and send IPv6 packets to destination over IPv4 network. The tester analyzes the packets forwared by the SUT at receiving end, calculates the throughput of SUT for different sizes of packets under the IPv6 over IPv4 configured tunnel. Test ResultsIPv6 packet size 512Destination address of sending IPv6 data packets 3FFE0042/64Bandwidth range of sending IPv6 tra