metasystema.org
CurrentINFORMATIONALIETF stream

RFC 4864: Local Network Protection for IPv6

In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC

Although there are many perceived benefits to Network Address Translation (NAT), its primary benefit of "amplifying" available address space is not needed in IPv6. In addition to NAT's many serious disadvantages, there is a perception that other benefits exist, such as a variety of management and security attributes that could be useful for an Internet Protocol site. IPv6 was designed with the intention of making NAT unnecessary, and this document shows how Local Network Protection (LNP) using IPv6 can provide the same or more benefits without the need for address translation. This memo provides information for the Internet community.

Document record

Document ID
RFC4864
Published
May 2007
Authors
G. Van de Velde; T. Hain; R. Droms; B. Carpenter; E. Klein
Status
INFORMATIONAL
Stream
IETF
Area
ops
Pages
36
Also known as
—

Topics

Related documents

Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.

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?

canonical URL: /rfc/4864-local-network-protection-for-ipv6