[170250] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chip Marshall)
Tue Mar 25 14:17:41 2014
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:16:42 -0400
From: Chip Marshall <chip@2bithacker.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1403251848510.747@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Reply-To: chip@2bithacker.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--LyciRD1jyfeSSjG0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 2014-03-25, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> sent:
> I have repeatedly tried to get people interested in methods of
> making it possible for ISPs to publish their "per-customer"
> allocation size, so far without any success. Most of the time I
> seem to get "we did it a certain way for IPv4, it works, we
> don't want to change it" from people.
So it's yet another chicken-and-egg problem to add to the pile
for IPv6. Mail ops don't care because IPv6 isn't here, net ops
delay IPv6 because mail isn't ready for it?
This seems like to sort of problem that Mailops or MAAWG should
be hammering out. There's a great opportunity to get some good
BCP documents out there on "Here's how to do email in IPv6"
before deployment goes past the point of no return.
Spamhaus has had a fair amount of success with getting ISPs to
participate in things like the PBL. Why not establish something
similar for allocation sizes in IPv6?
--=20
Chip Marshall <chip@2bithacker.net>
http://2bithacker.net/
--LyciRD1jyfeSSjG0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAlMxyAoACgkQnTUxIUPEgZ77BQCfcULSvXvLd5TvGbprfsuV5gOB
rm0AniCxnL5rt9kipz51OB0y5DGwhIdt
=WWLf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--LyciRD1jyfeSSjG0--
