RFC 4692: Considerations on the IPv6 Host Density Metric
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This memo provides an analysis of the Host Density metric as it is currently used to guide registry allocations of IPv6 unicast address blocks. This document contrasts the address efficiency as currently adopted in the allocation of IPv4 network addresses and that used by the IPv6 protocol. Note that for large allocations there are very significant variations in the target efficiency metric between the two approaches. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC4692
- Published
- October 2006
- Authors
- G. Huston
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- —
- Pages
- 17
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 4640Problem Statement for bootstrapping Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)Current
September 2006
- RFC 4620IPv6 Node Information QueriesCurrent
August 2006
- RFC 4852IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis - IP Layer 3 FocusCurrent
April 2007
- RFC 4862IPv6 Stateless Address AutoconfigurationUpdated
September 2007
- RFC 4472Operational Considerations and Issues with IPv6 DNSCurrent
April 2006
- RFC 4942IPv6 Transition/Co-existence Security ConsiderationsCurrent
September 2007
- RFC 4943IPv6 Neighbor Discovery On-Link Assumption Considered HarmfulCurrent
September 2007
- RFC 4944Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 NetworksUpdated
September 2007
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?