RFC 6312: Mobile Networks Considerations for IPv6 Deployment
This RFC has been replaced. Do not implement against it for new work — it was formally obsoleted by RFC 6342.
Current version: RFC 6342 — Mobile Networks Considerations for IPv6 Deployment
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
Mobile Internet access from smartphones and other mobile devices is accelerating the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses. IPv6 is widely seen as crucial for the continued operation and growth of the Internet, and in particular, it is critical in mobile networks. This document discusses the issues that arise when deploying IPv6 in mobile networks. Hence, this document can be a useful reference for service providers and network designers. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6312
- Published
- July 2011
- Authors
- R. Koodli
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- ops
- Pages
- 17
- Also known as
- —
- Obsoleted by:
- RFC 6342
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 6313Export of Structured Data in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)Current
July 2011
- RFC 6308Overview of the Internet Multicast Addressing ArchitectureCurrent
June 2011
- RFC 6305I'm Being Attacked by PRISONER.IANA.ORG!Current
July 2011
- RFC 6304AS112 Nameserver OperationsObsoleted
July 2011
- RFC 6303Locally Served DNS ZonesCurrent
July 2011
- RFC 6324Routing Loop Attack Using IPv6 Automatic Tunnels: Problem Statement and Proposed MitigationsCurrent
August 2011
- RFC 6291Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM" Acronym in the IETFUpdated
June 2011
- RFC 6340Textual Conventions for the Representation of Floating-Point NumbersCurrent
August 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?