Unintended Operational Issues With ULA
draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-02
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(v6ops WG)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Nick Buraglio , Chris Cummings , Russ White | ||
| Last updated | 2023-10-20 (Latest revision 2023-04-18) | ||
| Replaces | draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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. The lack of a consistent and supportable way to manipulate this behavior, across all platforms and at scale 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.)