QoS Performance of IPV4 and IPV6 for Mixed Data and Multimedia Traffic Under PQ, WFQ, and CQ

Elfurjani Sasi  Mresa; Abdelfattah Saleh   Ergheegh

doi:10.66411/jer.v41i2.472

Authors

Elfurjani Sasi Mresa Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Tripoli, Tripoli, Libya. Author
Abdelfattah Saleh Ergheegh Department of Computer Science, University of Tripoli, Tripoli, Libya. Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.66411/jer.v41i2.472

Keywords:

IPv4,, IPv6,, Quality of Service (QoS),, PQ,, WFQ,, CQ,, Voice,, Video Conferencing,, HTTP,, FTP,, Email,, Database.

Abstract

This paper compares the Quality of Service (QoS) performance of Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) and Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) under Priority Queuing (PQ), Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ), and Custom Queuing (CQ) for mixed traffic comprising voice, video conferencing, Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), File Transfer Protocol (FTP), email, and database applications in Optimized Network Engineering Tools (OPNET) Modeler. Under identical heavy-load conditions, end-to-end delay, packet delay variation, throughput, and application response time were evaluated. The results show that queueing discipline had a greater influence on QoS than protocol version. IPv4 and IPv6 behaved similarly for most non-real-time applications, with only minor scheduler-dependent differences. For voice traffic, PQ and WFQ maintained low end-to-end delay and stable delay variation, whereas CQ produced higher delay variation. For video conferencing, the scheduler effect was much stronger: CQ produced the lowest delay and packet delay variation in the tested topology, while WFQ caused severe delay build-up and entered a markedly different operating regime under heavy contention. These findings indicate that, in mixed-application networks, scheduler selection is a more decisive factor than protocol version alone in determining QoS.

References

[1] J. Postel, “Internet Protocol,” RFC 791, Internet Engineering Task Force, Sept. 1981. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC791

[2] S. Deering and R. Hinden, “Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification,” RFC 8200, Internet Engineering Task Force, July 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC8200

[3] J. L. Shah and J. Parvez, (2014), “Evaluation of queuing algorithms on QoS-sensitive applications in IPv6 network,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Advances in Computing, Communication, and Informatics (ICACCI). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACCI.2014.6968226

[4] M. Alajeeli and G. A. Madani, (2022), “Comparison of scheduling schemes in IPv4 and IPv6 to achieve high QoS,” Proc. 2nd IEEE Int. Maghreb Meeting Conf. on Sciences and Techniques of Automatic Control and Computer Engineering (MI-STA), Sabratha, Libya.

[5] F. K. Al-Fayyadh, (2018), “A comparative study of QoS over IPv4/IPv6 using Opnet-modeler,” Univ. Thi-Qar J. Sci., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 137–144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32792/utq/utjsci/v6i4.79

[6] M. O. Eltaib, H. H. Alshammari, A. Boukrara, K. Gasmi, and O. Hrizi, (2022), “Choosing the best quality-of-service algorithm using OPNET simulation,” Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. (IJECE), vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 4079–4089. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11591/ijece.v12i4.pp4079-4089

[7] E. Ibhaze, O. Okoyeigbo, Y. A. Samson, P. Obba, and I. K. Okakwu, (2020), “Performance evaluation of IPv6 and IPv4 for future technologies,” in Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (AISC), vol. 1129, Springer, pp. 15–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39445-5_2

[8] E. Mresa and A. Ergheegh, (2025), “Assessing the effects of queuing algorithms and routing protocols on quality of service for video traffic over IPv4 and IPv6 networks”, Libyan Journal of Science & Technology, vol.15, no. 2, pp. 1-7, (2025). DOI: https://doi.org/10.37376/ljst.v15i2.7646

[9] Y. Su and C.-M. Huang, (2018), “QRED: A Q-learning-based active queue management scheme,” J. Internet Technol., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1189–1200.

[10] Z. Li, Y. Hu, L. Tian, and Z. Lv, (2023), “Packet rank-aware active queue management for programmable flow scheduling,” Computer Networks, vol. 225, 109632, doi: 10.1016/j.comnet.2023.109632. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2023.109632

[11] G. Park, (2022), “QoS implementation with triple-metric-based active queue management,” Electronics, vol. 12, no. 1, Art. 23, doi:10.3390/electronics12010023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12010023

[12] M. Rehman, F. Ullah, and S. Khan, (2024), “Comparative evaluation of IPv4 and IPv6 QoS for multimedia streams using adaptive queuing,” Wireless Networks, vol. 30, pp. 1123–1138.

[13] E. Munthali, S. Tembo, and L. Phiri, (2024), “Impact of VoIP codec schemes and queuing techniques on ftp and video conferencing performance”, International Journal of Networks and Communications, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 15-22.