RFC 3364: Tradeoffs in Domain Name System (DNS) Support for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
The IETF has two different proposals on the table for how to do DNS support for IPv6, and has thus far failed to reach a clear consensus on which approach is better. This note attempts to examine the pros and cons of each approach, in the hope of clarifying the debate so that we can reach closure and move on.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC3364
- Published
- August 2002
- Authors
- R. Austein
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- int
- Pages
- 11
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 3110RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain Name System (DNS)Updated
May 2001
- RFC 2929Domain Name System (DNS) IANA ConsiderationsObsoleted
September 2000
- RFC 4641DNSSEC Operational PracticesObsoleted
September 2006
- RFC 3363Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)Updated
August 2002
- RFC 2672Non-Terminal DNS Name RedirectionObsoleted
August 1999
- RFC 2671Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)Obsoleted
August 1999
- RFC 6891Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))Current
April 2013
- RFC 10029DNS Multiple QTYPEsCurrent
July 2026
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?