Authors : Sanu Momodu Kabiru; Iniakpokeikiye Peter Thompson

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 5 - May

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/mrxeak8h

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/bdhmk7jm

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26May1107

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : The rapid growth of the Internet along with the requirement for connectivity between different types of devices underlies the deficiencies of IPv4. They include the limitation of addresses, NAT technology usage, and problems associated with network management. In this regard, IPv6 can be viewed as a means to provide highly efficient network solutions taking into account today's demands. This paper aims at investigating the question related to the comparison of the two protocols and evaluating their characteristics from the perspectives of performance and security. Specifically, the problem chosen for the analysis concerns performance comparison between IPv4 and IPv6 with special attention paid to their security characteristics. This research seeks to give an evaluation of the characteristics of these two protocols, including packet delivery, routing, latency, throughput, scalability, configuration, and cybersecurity through the analysis of packet delivery efficiency and the level of protection from cyber attacks conducted during experiments conducted with the help of simulation tools. Thus, the approach to the comparison of IPv4 and IPv6 can include the employment of a simulation software package (for instance, Cisco Packet Tracer), which allows one to create networks of identical architecture to compare their performance when working in dual-stack environments. Besides, the functioning of the protocols in enterprise networks will also be taken into account. In conclusion, it can be stated that IPv4 seems highly reliable although it lacks some flexibility in terms of address allocation and complicated routing because of NAT and subnets usage. IPv6 proves its advantages concerning scalability and routing with its hierarchical addressing. As far as the security of each protocol is concerned, IPv6 is believed to have several advantages because of native IPsec capabilities and better end-to-end communication possibilities. However, the effective implementation of both protocols requires proper configuration in order to ensure maximum security and stability.

References :

1. Arkko, J., & Kempf, J. (2003). IPv6 addressing architecture. RFC 3513. IETF.
2. Babatunde, O., & Al-Debagy, O. (2014). Performance evaluation of IPv4 and IPv6 protocols in network environments. International Journal of Computer Networks & Communications, 6(4), 45–56.
3. Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., & Beijnum, I. (2009). Stateful NAT64. RFC 6146. IETF.
4. Cañas, J., Rodríguez, P., & Martínez, L. (2025). Transition mechanisms in IPv4/IPv6 hybrid networks: Performance and scalability analysis. Journal of Network Engineering, 12(1), 1–18.
5. Carpenter, B., & Moore, K. (2001). Connection of IPv6 domains via IPv4 clouds. RFC 3056. IETF.
6. Cisco Systems. (2020). IPv6 deployment guide. Cisco Press.
7. Cordeiro, L., Gomes, D., & Nogueira, J. (2016). Comparative analysis of IPv4 and IPv6 performance. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 18(3), 1234–1250.
8. Davies, J. (2012). Understanding IPv6 (3rd ed.). Microsoft Press.
9. Deering, S., & Hinden, R. (2017). Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification (RFC 8200). Internet Engineering Task Force.
10. Durand, A., Fasano, P., Guardini, I., & Lento, D. (2003). IPv6 tunnel broker. RFC 3053. IETF.
11. Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., & Stevens, W. (1999). Basic transition mechanisms for IPv6 hosts and routers. RFC 4213. IETF.
12. Hagen, S. (2014). IPv6 essentials (3rd ed.). O’Reilly Media.
13. Harly, M., Khan, S., & Patel, R. (2025). Security challenges and solutions in IPv6 networks. Cybersecurity Review Journal, 9(2), 88–104.
14. Hossain, M. S., Rahman, M., & Karim, R. (2024). Performance and security evaluation of IPv4 and IPv6 in modern networks. Journal of Information Security, 15(2), 77–95.
15. Huitema, C. (2012). IPv6: The new Internet protocol (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.
16. Iyengar, J., & Thomson, M. (2021). QUIC: A UDP-based multiplexed and secure transport. RFC 9000. IETF.
17. Joseph, D., & Fudge, J. (2013). IPv6 deployment strategies. Network World, 30(5), 20–25.
18. Kurose, J. F., & Ross, K. W. (2021). Computer networking: A top-down approach (8th ed.). Pearson.
19. Li, X., & Wong, K. (2021). Routing efficiency comparison between IPv4 and IPv6. Computer Networks, 189, 107892.
20. Muni, R. (2024). IPv6 adoption and performance in enterprise networks. International Journal of Advanced Networking, 8(1), 22–35.
21. Perlman, R. (2010). Interconnections: Bridges, routers, switches, and internetworking protocols (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.
22. Postel, J. (1981). Internet Protocol. RFC 791. IETF.
23. Raicu, I. (2004). An empirical study of IPv4 and IPv6 performance. IEEE International Conference on Communications, 345–349.
24. Sailan, M., Hassan, R., & Patel, A. (2009). A comparative review of IPv4 and IPv6 for future internet. International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 6(3), 1–8.
25. Savoia, A. (2018). IPv6 migration challenges and solutions. Journal of Network Administration, 14(2), 55–70.
26. Sharma, S., & Gupta, A. (2019). Security issues in IPv6 networks. International Journal of Cybersecurity, 5(1), 33–41.
27. Singh, K., Sharma, P., & Kaur, G. (2013). Performance analysis of IPv4 and IPv6. International Journal of Computer Applications, 67(4), 1–5.
28. Tanenbaum, A. S., & Wetherall, D. (2021). Computer networks (6th ed.). Pearson.
29. Wing, D., & Beijnum, I. (2011). DNS64. RFC 6147. IETF.
30. Zhou, L., & Huang, D. (2017). IPv6 routing scalability and performance. IEEE Network, 31(1), 46–52.