On Mar 26, 2014, at 8:47 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <f...@cisco.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:31 PM, Cutler James R <james.cut...@consultant.com> > wrote: > >> 3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP connections >> is playing that uncomfortable game with one’s 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’s 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. > > All things considered, that’s 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’t implement it for IPv4. > Yet, here we are, using SMTP/IPv4 to discuss this, and I don’t hear anyone > saying that IPv4 isn’t ready for prime time as a result of the fact of some > operators not implementing RDNS. > > ... > Fred Baker describes the requirements in a most satisfactory manner. Thank you, Fred. James R. Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
