Stan Hoeppner <s...@hardwarefreak.com> writes: > Dave Täht put forth on 10/7/2009 2:40 PM: > >> I imagine you all were big fans of NETBUI and IPX/SPX too. > > That's a bit like comparing a German Shepherd and a Poodle to a Pig and > a Giraffe. IPv4/IPv6 share the same architecture (same species) and > base protocol, but use different addressing. IPv6 adds some sprinkles. > They are inter operable to a large degree. > > NetBeui/NetBIOS and IPX/SPX were completely different animals. IPX/SPX > had substantial benefits over NetBeui, specifically it could be routed > and the broadcast overhead wasn't as servere. They shared no > underpinnings (different species), and were not inter operable. > > You're making IPv6 out to be a much larger _core_ feature upgrade than > it really is.
Well, actually, I was just venting. I'd solved an interesting problem in an interesting way. I was happy. > >> In terms of traction, here's a new data point for you: >> >> http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2009/09/who-put-the-ipv6-in-my-internet/ > > ROFL. Less than 1 percent (and from what God did Arbor get world wide > network statistics?) You quoted an article using Hurricane Electric as > it's crown jewel? HE is/was one of the largest spam hosts on the > planet. Many mail admins/orgs block their entire IPv4 address space, > including Nortel, a Canada based, worldwide telecom/network hardware > manufacturer with ~25K employees. Makes you wonder why HE is pushing > hard to transition to IPv6 eh? > > There was a very lengthy discussion about IPv6 on spam-l a while back. I will google for that discussion. I am always willing to learn. > Unanimous opinion was that all inbound SMTP mail from IPv6 addresses > would be outright blocked, period. Sending mail servers and MX hosts > must stay on IPv4 addresses, period. The reason? Yep, you guessed it, > spam. If everyone said, "sure, we'll accept your IPv6 mail traffic", > overnight, spammers would switch to IPv6, making 15 years of antispam > intelligence useless, and inboxen would overflow with thousands of > spams/day again before the anti-spam crowd could catch up. I agree that many of the anti-spam features developed over the last decades break down over ipv6. On the other hand quite a few features do apply. I sincerely doubt that everyone will switch to mail, or anything, really, over ipv6 overnight, and given the negative reaction among the anti-spam crowd, I concede it likely that smtp email may never be accepted over ipv6. Email, as we know it, will continue to become increasingly irrelevant, replaced by less painful protocols. > The public internet mail stays on IPv4 kids, whether you like it or not. > That's the way it's going to be, even if _everything else_ converts to > IPv6, smtp mail won't. For the rather distant foreseeable future at > least (10-20 years, maybe indefinitely). I take it this discussion took place entirely in english? In my case, Ipv6 solved a real problem. I tried really hard with my solution by participating on this list (and succeeded) in making my hybrid solution fully RFC compliant and interoperate with (so far as I can tell) 100% of the servers on the internet and hopefully some percentage of the future servers more directly and efficiently. I used cacert certificates, starttls encryption, and all but one of my ipv6 servers has valid reverse dns (which I am still fixing). Is there an Ipv6 provider with a less bad reputation that Hurricane? I wouldn't mind seeing ipv6 based mail servers adopt more stringent crypto and cert requirements than proposed by current rfcs, either, changing certain requirements from MAY to MUST... Did the discussion on spam-l result in an RFC? I have a pretty good anti-spam setup on the ipv4 side and one that is almost as good on the ipv6 side. (What I intend to do is aim one of my spam sump mailboxes at a test server in a jail and see what happens, I'm under the impression there is ivp6 rbl support now) In the end, we all have to keep banging the rocks together, kids or no. > > -- > Stan > -- Dave Taht http://the-edge.blogspot.com "The future is here, it just isn't evenly distributed yet" -
