Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition Technologies for IPv4aaS
draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-05
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
Expired & archived
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Gábor Lencse , Jordi Palet Martinez , Lee Howard , Richard Patterson , Ian Farrer | ||
Last updated | 2021-01-09 (Latest revision 2020-07-08) | ||
Replaced by | draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison, RFC 9313 | ||
RFC stream | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
Several IPv6 transition technologies have been developed to provide customers with IPv4-as-a-Service (IPv4aaS) for ISPs with an IPv6-only access and/or core network. All these technologies have their advantages and disadvantages, and depending on existing topology, skills, strategy and other preferences, one of these technologies may be the most appropriate solution for a network operator. This document examines the five most prominent IPv4aaS technologies considering a number of different aspects to provide network operators with an easy to use reference to assist in selecting the technology that best suits their needs.
Authors
Gábor Lencse
Jordi Palet Martinez
Lee Howard
Richard Patterson
Ian Farrer
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)