[170384] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 address literals probably aren't SMTP either
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Levine)
Wed Mar 26 23:32:21 2014
Date: 27 Mar 2014 03:28:28 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <5333970A.6070107@direcpath.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In article <5333970A.6070107@direcpath.com> you write:
>
>On 3/26/2014 10:16 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>>
>> and user@2001:db8::1.25 with user@192.0.2.1:25. Who had the good idea to use : for IPv6 addresses while this is the
>separator for the port in IPv4? A few MTA are confused by it.
>At the network level the IPv6 address is just a big number. No
>confusion there. At the plaintext level the naked IPv6 address should
>be wrapped in square brackets.
>
>From:
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.2
It's messier than that. See RFC 5321 section 4.1.3. I have no idea
whether anyone has actually implemented IPv6 address literals and if
so, how closely they followed the somewhat peculiar spec.
R's,
John
