Hybrid Type Prefix for IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Addresses
draft-xu-behave-hybrid-type-prefix-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Xiaohu Xu , Cameron Byrne | ||
| Last updated | 2010-01-15 | ||
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
To build IPv4-Embedded IPv6 addresses for IPv4/IPv6 translation, the Well-Known Prefix (WKP) and Network Specific Prefix (NSP)-based address formats have been defined in [Address-Format]. However, both of them have some limitations in several use cases. Hence, this document aims at discussing the validity of the use cases and assess the interest of the BEHAVE WG to meet the requirement of unambiguously distinguishing IPv4-Embedded IPv6 addresses from native IPv6 ones. Doing so would guide the address selection and therefore allow avoiding crossing unnecessary or even useless address family translators. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)