Unintended Operational Issues With ULA
draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula-05
| 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) | ||
| Formats | |||
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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:
Abstract
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] .
Authors
Nick Buraglio
Chris Cummings
Russ White
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)