--On 17 June 2009 08:51:06 +0000 John Levine <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com> wrote:
If we don't specify some RFC/BCP to specify how SMTP over IPv6 should be
negotiated, then no one will follow.
The IETF is amazingly resistant to making v6 SMTP different from v4 SMTP
in any way.
In particular, I suggested that they not have a rule for fallback to
AAAA in the absence of MX. The rationale is straightforward: most
hosts with AAAA (and indeed A) records are not mail servers, people
need to add new DNS records anyway for v6 so the incremental effort to
install MX records is quite small, and it'll make mail more reliable
by making it easier to tell when a domain doesn't receive mail. They
all said too late, there are already a handful of v6 mail hosts.
Sigh.
But, do they have MX records? If yes, there's not a problem. Do you receive
any email from them? If no, there's not a problem.
If a good chunk of the world implemented the rule that you've suggested
(perhaps "*.ac.uk" or "*.gov" domains, or just gmail), then we'd be in a
good place. It might not be too late for some leadership initiative to
actually make a difference outside the IETF.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg