RFC 8026: Unified IPv4-in-IPv6 Softwire Customer Premises Equipment (CPE): A DHCPv6-Based Prioritization Mechanism
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
In IPv6-only provider networks, transporting IPv4 packets encapsulated in IPv6 is a common solution to the problem of IPv4 service continuity. A number of differing functional approaches have been developed for this, each having their own specific characteristics. As these approaches share a similar functional architecture and use the same data plane mechanisms, this memo specifies a DHCPv6 option, whereby a single instance of Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) can interwork with all of the standardized and proposed approaches to providing encapsulated IPv4-in-IPv6 services by providing a prioritization mechanism.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC8026
- Published
- November 2016
- Authors
- M. Boucadair; I. Farrer
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- int
- Pages
- 11
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 8539Softwire Provisioning Using DHCPv4 over DHCPv6Current
March 2019
- RFC 8114Delivery of IPv4 Multicast Services to IPv4 Clients over an IPv6 Multicast NetworkCurrent
March 2017
- RFC 7678Attribute-Value Pairs for Provisioning Customer Equipment Supporting IPv4-Over-IPv6 Transitional SolutionsCurrent
October 2015
- RFC 8115DHCPv6 Option for IPv4-Embedded Multicast and Unicast IPv6 PrefixesCurrent
March 2017
- RFC 7753Port Control Protocol (PCP) Extension for Port-Set AllocationCurrent
February 2016
- RFC 8658RADIUS Attributes for Softwire Mechanisms Based on Address plus Port (A+P)Current
November 2019
- RFC 7596Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the Dual-Stack Lite ArchitectureCurrent
July 2015
- RFC 8513A YANG Data Model for Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite)Current
January 2019
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?