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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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.)