Skip to main content

Things To Be Considered for RFC 3484 Revision

Document Type Replaced Internet-Draft (individual)
Expired & archived
Authors Arifumi Matsumoto , Tomohiro Fujisaki , Ruri Hiromi
Last updated 2010-07-12 (Latest revision 2009-10-22)
Replaced by draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise
RFC stream (None)
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state Replaced by draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:


RFC 3484 has several known issues to be fixed. Deprecation of IPv6 site-local unicast address and the coming of ULA brought some preferable changes to the rules. Additionally, the rule 9 of the destination address selection rules, namely the longest matching rule, is known for its adverse effect on the round robin DNS technique. This document covers these points to be fixed and proposes possible useful changes to be included in the revision of RFC 3484.


Arifumi Matsumoto
Tomohiro Fujisaki
Ruri Hiromi

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)