RFC 6146: Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document describes stateful NAT64 translation, which allows IPv6-only clients to contact IPv4 servers using unicast UDP, TCP, or ICMP. One or more public IPv4 addresses assigned to a NAT64 translator are shared among several IPv6-only clients. When stateful NAT64 is used in conjunction with DNS64, no changes are usually required in the IPv6 client or the IPv4 server.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6146
- Published
- April 2011
- Authors
- M. Bagnulo; P. Matthews; I. van Beijnum
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- tsv
- Pages
- 45
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 6586Experiences from an IPv6-Only NetworkCurrent
April 2012
- RFC 7934Host Address Availability RecommendationsCurrent
July 2016
- RFC 8305Happy Eyeballs Version 2: Better Connectivity Using ConcurrencyCurrent
December 2017
- RFC 8683Additional Deployment Guidelines for NAT64/464XLAT in Operator and Enterprise NetworksCurrent
November 2019
- RFC 8880Special Use Domain Name 'ipv4only.arpa'Current
August 2020
- RFC 9872Recommendations for Discovering IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address SynthesisCurrent
September 2025
- RFC 6145IP/ICMP Translation AlgorithmObsoleted
April 2011
- RFC 6156Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Extension for IPv6Obsoleted
April 2011
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?