Things To Be Considered for RFC 3484 Revision
draft-arifumi-6man-rfc3484-revise-03
| 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) | ||
| Formats | |||
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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:
Abstract
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.
Authors
Arifumi Matsumoto
Tomohiro Fujisaki
Ruri Hiromi
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)