Skip to main content

Unintended Operational Issues With ULA

Document Type Replaced Internet-Draft (individual)
Expired & archived
Authors Nick Buraglio , Chris Cummings , Russ White
Last updated 2022-07-27
Replaced by draft-ietf-v6ops-ula
RFC stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Additional resources Mailing List Archive
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state Replaced by draft-ietf-v6ops-ula
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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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:


The behavior of ULA addressing as defined by [RFC6724] is preferred below legacy IPv4 addressing, thus rendering ULA IPv6 deployment functionally unusable in IPv4 / IPv6 dual-stacked environments. This behavior is counter to the operational behavior of GUA IPv6 addressing on nearly all modern operating systems that leverage a preference model based on [RFC6724] .


Nick Buraglio
Chris Cummings
Russ White

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