Hi,
As promised in the ASRG meeting in Dublin, I will gather some stats
over the next week or two and assemble a draft-format doc with some
initial 'ball park' musings, including our local scenario/config.
If people want advice on dual-stack MX setup, see RFC3974. This
document is 3 years old, but I believe what it says is still considered
best practice.
Tim
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 10:26:45AM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
John Levine wrote:
Someone pointed out that in some popular dual stack systems,
connections from IPv4 addresses appear as IPv6 addresses
in :FFFF:0000:0000/96
Yes, that is what I meant when I mentioned RFC 4408, (ab)using
::FFFF:127.0.0.2 as an "obvious" test entry. Another proposal
in the meeting was to use one of the IPv6 example addresses
for this purpose. But I can't remember the example addresses
without my 4408 cheat sheet, an obvious entry would be better.
The immediate question is whether to add a sentence or two
to the DNSBL spec saying that if you have a DNSBL listing
both v4 and v6 addresses, and you list a v4 address, you
SHOULD or MUST also list the corresponding embedded v6
No. It is the job of the clients to get this right, they are
supposed to ask for the IPv4 form of these addresses. With
::FFFF:127.0.0.2 as a possible *exception* for test purposes.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
--
Tim
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg