Comment Comment by throw0101d I have gotten flack for giving ULA+NPTv6 as a possible solution to an IPv6 multi-homing issue because the RFC that describes it was 'only' "Experimental":* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6296When I pointed out that the NAT(44) RFC (1631/3022) was 'only' "Informational" I got radio silence:* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1631 parent throw0101d 3 months ago
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6296
When I pointed out that the NAT(44) RFC (1631/3022) was 'only' "Informational" I got radio silence:
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1631