RFC 9313: Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition Technologies for IPv4-as-a-Service (IPv4aaS)
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
Several IPv6 transition technologies have been developed to provide customers with IPv4-as-a-Service (IPv4aaS) for ISPs with an IPv6-only access and/or core network. These technologies have their advantages and disadvantages. Depending on existing topology, skills, strategy, and other preferences, one of these technologies may be the most appropriate solution for a network operator. This document examines the five most prominent IPv4aaS technologies and considers a number of different aspects to provide network operators with an easy-to-use reference to assist in selecting the technology that best suits their needs.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC9313
- Published
- October 2022
- Authors
- G. Lencse; J. Palet Martinez; L. Howard; R. Patterson; I. Farrer
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- ops
- Pages
- 27
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 8219Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition TechnologiesCurrent
August 2017
- RFC 8683Additional Deployment Guidelines for NAT64/464XLAT in Operator and Enterprise NetworksCurrent
November 2019
- RFC 8658RADIUS Attributes for Softwire Mechanisms Based on Address plus Port (A+P)Current
November 2019
- RFC 9386IPv6 Deployment StatusCurrent
April 2023
- RFC 9872Recommendations for Discovering IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address SynthesisCurrent
September 2025
- RFC 7934Host Address Availability RecommendationsCurrent
July 2016
- RFC 7678Attribute-Value Pairs for Provisioning Customer Equipment Supporting IPv4-Over-IPv6 Transitional SolutionsCurrent
October 2015
- RFC 8880Special Use Domain Name 'ipv4only.arpa'Current
August 2020
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?