RFC 6586: Experiences from an IPv6-Only Network
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document discusses our experiences from moving a small number of users to an IPv6-only network, with access to the IPv4-only parts of the Internet via a NAT64 device. The document covers practical experiences as well as roadblocks and opportunities for this type of a network setup. The document also makes some recommendations about where such networks are applicable and what should be taken into account in the network design. The document also discusses further work that is needed to make IPv6-only networking applicable in all environments. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6586
- Published
- April 2012
- Authors
- J. Arkko; A. Keranen
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- —
- Pages
- 21
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 6146Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 ServersCurrent
April 2011
- 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 6556Testing Eyeball HappinessCurrent
April 2012
- RFC 6619Scalable Operation of Address Translators with Per-Interface BindingsCurrent
June 2012
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?