RFC 6036: Emerging Service Provider Scenarios for IPv6 Deployment
This RFC has been replaced. Do not implement against it for new work — it was formally obsoleted by RFC 9386.
Current version: RFC 9386 — IPv6 Deployment Status
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document describes practices and plans that are emerging among Internet Service Providers for the deployment of IPv6 services. They are based on practical experience so far, as well as current plans and requirements, reported in a survey of a number of ISPs carried out in early 2010. This document identifies a number of technology gaps, but it does not make recommendations. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6036
- Published
- October 2010
- Authors
- B. Carpenter; S. Jiang
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- ops
- Pages
- 23
- Also known as
- —
- Obsoleted by:
- RFC 9386
Topics
Referenced by
One later RFC formally updates or obsoletes part of this document.
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 4779ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband Access NetworksCurrent
January 2007
- RFC 4778Operational Security Current Practices in Internet Service Provider EnvironmentsCurrent
January 2007
- RFC 7646Definition and Use of DNSSEC Negative Trust AnchorsCurrent
September 2015
- RFC 3750Unmanaged Networks IPv6 Transition ScenariosCurrent
April 2004
- RFC 2477Criteria for Evaluating Roaming ProtocolsCurrent
January 1999
- RFC 2194Review of Roaming ImplementationsCurrent
September 1997
- RFC 6057Comcast's Protocol-Agnostic Congestion Management SystemCurrent
December 2010
- RFC 5632Comcast's ISP Experiences in a Proactive Network Provider Participation for P2P (P4P) Technical TrialCurrent
September 2009
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?