[170376] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fred Baker (fred))
Wed Mar 26 20:47:46 2014
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Cutler James R <james.cutler@consultant.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:47:20 +0000
In-Reply-To: <4AA4280D-D6EF-4751-9E0F-45BD6D03F10D@consultant.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--Apple-Mail=_899E9A27-1249-4C65-A482-7AACB4EDCB61
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=windows-1252
On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:31 PM, Cutler James R =
<james.cutler@consultant.com> wrote:
> 3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP =
connections is playing that uncomfortable game with one=92s own combat =
boots. And not particularly productive.
That is one of my two big take-aways from this conversation. The other =
is that operators of SMTP MTAs should implement RDNS for them, which I =
thought we already knew.
To my knowledge, there are three impacts that IPv6 implementation makes =
on an SMTP implementation. One is that the OS interface to get the =
address of the next MUA or MTA needs to use getaddrinfo() instead of =
gethostbyname() (and would do well to observe RFC 6555=92s =
considerations). Another is that, whether on an incoming or an outbound =
connection, when the application gets its own address from the OS =
(binary or as a character string), it needs to allocate more storage for =
the data structure. The third is that it needs to be able to interpret =
user@2001:db8::1 as well as user@dns-name and user@192.0.2.1.=20
All things considered, that=92s a pretty narrow change set.
Everyone here, no doubt, is clueful enough to implement RDNS for their =
MTAs. We know that there are people in the world that don=92t implement =
it for IPv4. Yet, here we are, using SMTP/IPv4 to discuss this, and I =
don=92t hear anyone saying that IPv4 isn=92t ready for prime time as a =
result of the fact of some operators not implementing RDNS.
...
--Apple-Mail=_899E9A27-1249-4C65-A482-7AACB4EDCB61
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iD8DBQFTM3UWbjEdbHIsm0MRAiGCAJ9wAjLsqQ/9uFk+6eyGBR2s+WIsJQCgzxfl
heUZMU041LBjZP0g7CmDH48=
=mhIh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_899E9A27-1249-4C65-A482-7AACB4EDCB61--
