[170378] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James R Cutler)
Wed Mar 26 22:03:05 2014
From: James R Cutler <james.cutler@consultant.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 22:04:04 -0400
To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <A235C285-8934-4908-A789-24DAA9E2393D@cisco.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--Apple-Mail=_A59F63BB-28B9-4CF0-BDED-556D720ACA2F
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=windows-1252
On Mar 26, 2014, at 8:47 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:31 PM, Cutler James R =
<james.cutler@consultant.com> wrote:
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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
>=20
> All things considered, that=92s a pretty narrow change set.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> ...
>=20
Fred Baker describes the requirements in a most satisfactory manner.
Thank you, Fred.
James R. Cutler
James.cutler@consultant.com
PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
--Apple-Mail=_A59F63BB-28B9-4CF0-BDED-556D720ACA2F
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-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iEYEARECAAYFAlMzhxQACgkQHzETiNcaVPkRkQCff8yPwEru9g8SP9vV6uynMUaE
OXcAn2HwARXf+JVHyctHUeKl2tSVT+Aa
=3ZJA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_A59F63BB-28B9-4CF0-BDED-556D720ACA2F--
