short-paper

Evaluation of TCP over IPv4 and IPv6 for the ESP8266 in Normal Operation and Under a DoS Attack

Authors:

Brody SmithAuthors Info & Claims

ACMSE '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Southeast Conference

Pages 243 - 247

https://doi.org/10.1145/3374135.3385311

Published: 25 May 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Since the Internet of Things (IoT) is gaining acceptance worldwide, manufacturers have proposed cheap modules and development boards for its implementation. Even if those devices have been in the markets for some years, just a few studies assess their network performance. In this work, we selected the ESP8266, a well-known IoT module, and evaluated its TCP performance in normal operation, and when facing a Denial of Service (DoS) attack. The performance evaluation was done for both IPv4 and IPv6 using two different platforms for development.

References

[1]

A. Allan, Learning ESP8266: Build the Internet of Things with the Arduino IDE and Raspberry Pi, O'Reilly, February 2017.

[2]

Arduino IDE, https://www.arduino.cc/en/main/software.

[3]

ARIN, ARIN IPv4 Free Pool Reaches Zero, September 2015, https://www.arin.net/vault/announcements/2015/20150924.html.

[4]

ARIN, IPv4 Addressing Options, https://www.arin.net/resources/guide/ipv4.

[5]

S. Behal and K. Kumar, Characterization and Comparison of DDoS Attack Tools and Trac Generators - A Review, International Journal of Network Security, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 383--393, May 2017.

[6]

D. Bhatnagar, S. Som, and S. K. Khatri, Advance Persistent Threat and Cyber Spying - The Big Picture, its Tools, Attack Vectors and Countermeasures, in Proceedings of the 2019 Amity International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AICAI 2019), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, April 2019.

[7]

A. Botta, A. Dainotti, A. Pescapè, A Tool for the Generation of Realistic Network Workload for Emerging Networking Scenarios, Computer Networks, Vol. 56, No. 15, pp 3531-3547, 2012.

Digital Library

[8]

L. Colitti, S. H. Gunderson, E. Kline, and T. Refice, Evaluating IPv6 Adoption in the Internet, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6032, pp. 141--150, Springer-Verlag, 2010.

[9]

J. Czyz, M. Allman, J. Zhang, S. Iekel-Johnson, E. Osterweil, and M. Bailey, Measuring IPv6 Adoption, in Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on SIGCOMM (SIGCOMM 2014), Chicago, IL, USA, August 2014.

Digital Library

[10]

S. Deering and R. Hinden, Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification, RFC 8200, July 2017.

Digital Library

[11]

P. Diniz and N. Alves, Iperf Tool: Generation and Evaluation of TCP and UDP Data Traffic, Notas Tecnicas, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 1--13, 2014.

[12]

D-ITG (Distributed Internet Traffic Generator), http://www.grid.unina.it/software/ITG.

[13]

A. Dunkels, Design and Implementation of the lwIP TCP/IP Stack, Sweden Institute of Computer Science, February 2001.

[14]

Espressif SDK, https://github.com/espressif/ESP8266_RTOS_SDK.

[15]

P. Farina, E. Cambiaso, G. Papaleo, and M. Aiello, Understanding DDoS Attacks from Mobile Devices, in Proceedings of the 2015 3rd International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud, Rome, Italy, August 2015.

Digital Library

[16]

B. Feldner and P. Herber, A Quantitative Evaluation of IPv6 for the Industrial Internet of Things, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 134, pp. 377--384, 2018.

[17]

E. Gamess, B. Smith, and G. Francia, Performance Evaluation of Modbus TCP in Normal Operation and Under a Distributed Denial of Service Attack, International Journal of Computer Networks & Communications (IJCNC), Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 1--21, March 2020.

[18]

E. Gamess and H. Ortiz-Zuazaga, Analytical Performance Evaluation of IPv6 and IPv4 Over 10 Gigabit Ethernet and InfiniBand using IPoIB, International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications (IJACSA), Vol. 7, No. 8, pp. 214--222, 2016.

[19]

P. Gil, G. J. Garcia, A. Delgado, R. M. Medina, A. Calderón, P. Marti, Computer Networks Virtualization with GNS3: Evaluating a Solution to Optimize Resources and Achieve a Distance Learning, in Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE 2014), Madrid, Spain, October 2014.

[20]

Google, Statistics of IPv6 Adoption, https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html.

[21]

R. Graziani, IPv6 Fundamentals: A Straightforward Approach to Understanding IPv6, 2nd edition, Cisco Press, June 2017.

[22]

HexaBuild, IPv6 Adoption Report 2019: The Rise of India, https://hexabuild.io/assets/files/HexaBuild-IPv6-Adoption-Report-2019.pdf.

[23]

Hping3 Homepage, http://www.hping.org/hping3.html.

[24]

L. Hughes, The Third Internet: Reinventing Computer Networks with IPv6, InfoWeapons, August 2019.

[25]

InfiniBand Trade Association, InfiniBand Architecture Specification Volume 1, Release 1.3, March 2015.

[26]

InfiniBand Trade Association, InfiniBand Architecture Specification Volume 2, Release 1.3, March 2015.

[27]

Iperf Home Page, https://software.es.net/iperf.

[28]

M. Jayakumar, The Internet of Things with ESP8266 Hands on Approach: Get Started with Arduino IDE and ESP8266, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, February 2017.

[29]

S. Kolahi, S. Narayan, D. Nguyen, and Y. Sunarto, Performance Monitoring of Various Network Traffic Generators, in Proceedings of the 2011 UKSim-AMSS International Conference on Computer Modelling and Simulation (UKSim 2011), Cambridge, UK, April 2011.

[30]

F. Li, X. Wang, T. Pan, and J. Yang, A Case Study of IPv6 Network Performance: Packet Delay, Loss, and Reordering, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Vol. 2017, Article ID 3056475, 2017.

[31]

X. Luo, E. W. W. Chan, and R. K. C. Chang, Design and Implementation of TCP Data Probes for Reliable and Metric-Rich Network Path Monitoring, in Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX 2009), San Diego, CA, USA, June 2009.

[32]

lwIP, Lightweight IP Stack, http://www.nongnu.org/lwip.

[33]

P. MacArthur, Q. Liu, R. D. Russell, F. Mizero, M. Veeraraghavan, and J. M. Dennis, An Integrated Tutorial on InfiniBand, Verbs, and MPI, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, Vol. 19, No. 4, Fourth Quarter, 2017.

[34]

Modbus Messaging on TCP/IP Implementation Guide v1.0b, October 2006.

[35]

Netperf Homepage, https://hewlettpackard.github.io/netperf.

[36]

J. Neumann, The Book of GNS3: Build Virtual Network Labs Using Cisco, Juniper, and More, 1st edition, No Starch Press, July 2015.

[37]

OneProbe, Measuring Non-cooperative Internet Paths for Quality, Reliability, and Security. http://www.oneprobe.org.

[38]

PlatformIO IDE: A New Generation Ecosystem for Embedded Development, http://www.platformio.org.

[39]

M. Schwartz, ESP8266 Internet of Things Cookbook: Over 50 Recipes to Help you Master ESP8266 Functionality, Packt Publishing, April 2017.

[40]

U. S. Shaharuddin, R. A. Rahman, M. Kassim, M. I. Yusof, Performance Comparison of Multimedia Applications over IPv4 and IPv6 Dual Stack Technology, in Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 6th International Conference on System Engineering and Technology (ICSET 2016), Bandung, Indonesia, October 2016.

[41]

S. Shiwani, G. N. Purohit, and N. Hemrajani, Performance Analysis of IPv4 v/s IPv6 in Virtual Environment using Ubuntu, in Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN 2011), Maui, HI, USA, August 2011.

[42]

Y. Sookun and V. Bassoo, Performance Analysis of IPv4/IPv6 Transition Techniques, in Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Innovative Business Practices for the Transformation of Societies (EmergiTech 2016), Balaclava, Mauritius, August 2016.

[43]

Statista, Internet of Things Connected Devices Installed Base Worldwide from 2015 to 2025, https://www.statista.com/statistics/471264/iot-number-of-connected-devices-worldwide.

[44]

Zerynth Studio: A Powerful IDE for Embedded Programming in Python that Enables the IoT, https://www.zerynth.com/zerynth-studio.

Cited By

Cambiaso E(2023)On the Use of Low-Cost IoT Devices to Perpetrate Slow DoS AttacksProceedings of Eighth International Congress on Information and Communication Technology10.1007/978-981-99-3043-2_71(859-875)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3043-2_71

Index Terms

Evaluation of TCP over IPv4 and IPv6 for the ESP8266 in Normal Operation and Under a DoS Attack
1. Networks
  1. Network performance evaluation
  2. Network protocols

Recommendations

Performance Evaluation of TCP and UDP over IPv4 and IPv6 for the ESP8266 Module
IECC '20: Proceedings of the 2nd International Electronics Communication Conference

Due to the increasing popularity of the Internet of Things (IoT), several modules, development boards, and single-board computers have been proposed by the community and manufacturers. In this paper, we selected the ESP8266, an inexpensive module, to ...
An upper bound model for TCP and UDP throughput in IPv4 and IPv6

Due to the shortage of public IPv4 addresses, the IETF has developed a new version of the Internet Protocol called IPv6. Many institutions all over the world had already started the migration to IPv6. Since this migration has to be done slowly, the ...
Bi-directional Mapping System as a New IPv4/IPv6 Translation Mechanism
UKSIM '08: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Computer Modeling and Simulation

A new Internet protocol (IPv6) is being deployed with new features and improvements for the devices that are connected to the network. Unfortunately, the current Internet Protocol (IPv4) and the new Internet Protocol (IPv6) are incompatible with each ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

ACMSE '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Southeast Conference

April 2020

337 pages

ISBN:9781450371056

DOI:10.1145/3374135

Conference Chair:
Morris Chang,
Program Chair:
Dan Lo,
Publications Chair:
Eric Gamess

Copyright © 2020 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

ACM: Association for Computing Machinery

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 25 May 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Short-paper
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

ACM SE '20

Sponsor:

ACM

ACM SE '20: 2020 ACM Southeast Conference

April 2 - 4, 2020

FL, Tampa, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 502 of 1,023 submissions, 49%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

1
Total Citations
View Citations
119
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)6
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 27 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Cambiaso E(2023)On the Use of Low-Cost IoT Devices to Perpetrate Slow DoS AttacksProceedings of Eighth International Congress on Information and Communication Technology10.1007/978-981-99-3043-2_71(859-875)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3043-2_71

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents