[114849] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: MX Record Theories
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (gb10hkzo-nanog@yahoo.co.uk)
Thu May 28 04:41:24 2009
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 01:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: gb10hkzo-nanog@yahoo.co.uk
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.uulvsazttfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Wed, 27 May 2009 09:48:39 -0400, <gb10hkzo-nanog@yahoo=
.co.uk> wrote:=0A> Actually, I was thinking to myself yesterday that the em=
ail world is going to be awfully=0A> fun when IPv6 sets in and we're all ru=
nning mail servers with nice long AAAA records such as=0A> fc00:836b:4917::=
a180:4179.=0A=0A> You do realize DNS queries aren't passing around addresse=
s in ASCII? 3 additional bytes per address isn't going to break the bank.=
=0A=0A=0A=0AI think you might have missed the point of my post.=0A=0AIt was=
a tounge in cheek reply to the poster who suggested bad things happen if t=
he DNS message size exceeds 512 bytes.=0A=0AHe was commenting about AOL's M=
X records which currently weigh in at 507 bytes.=0A=0ATherefore if we were =
to hypothesise that the world ends at 512 bytes, then companies doing thing=
s the way AOL does, but using IPv6 addresses rather than IPv4 addresses for=
their MX records could run into "problems".=0A=0AHope that clarifies :)=0A=
=0A=0A
