PREFIX64 Comparison
draft-miyata-behave-prefix64-02
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Hiroshi Miyata , Marcelo Bagnulo | ||
| Last updated | 2009-03-09 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
This draft compares different IPv6 prefix formats that can be used by IPv6-IPv4 translator to represent IPv4 addresses in the IPv6 Internet. The goal of the draft is asses the benefits and problems of each proposed format and make a recommendation about which prefix to use in the different scenarios considered.
Authors
Hiroshi Miyata
Marcelo Bagnulo
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)