[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change

2008-03-31 20:24:37

One observation, having worked through this several times before realizing that the answer is obvious and feeling a need to be sure that we are in agreement about what we are discussing...

--On Monday, March 31, 2008 11:32 AM +0200 Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt(_at_)oryx(_dot_)com> wrote:

A rather simple and straightforward task that the current
draft  satisfies reasonably, modulo the usual

I read the -06 draft as permitting the last two alternatives
("A or AAAA", "A and AAAA"). 2821 itself says A.

Suppose one has mail addressed to user(_at_)foo(_dot_)example(_dot_)com(_dot_) Suppose further that one has  IN A
                    IN A
                    IN AAAA ....
and no MX record.

Now what 2821bis now says includes "address record" and the old rule about making an implicit MX record with preference 0 and then following the rules. So we pretend that we had   MX 0
to complement the above.

Interestingly enough, in that case, even if the rule were "implicit MX on A RRs only", exactly the same MX record would be generated. The only time the "address record" rule that is now present in 2821bis is an issue is if there is no A RR.

Once that implicit MX record exists, there are fairly clear rules about which address to use for To be a little more precise, while the rules are clear, they pretty much leave it up to the sending host and there is no real difference between the traditional choice between the two IPv4 addresses and the newer choice between the IPv4 addresses and the IPv6 one. The Standard also gives the sender implementation some flexibility about how many of those addresses it is obligated to try.

So, from the standpoint of the synthesized MX record (or an explicit MX record set up the same way), there is no difference between the "A and AAAA" and "A or AAAA" cases described above -- those are differences that have to do with selection of a target address once the MX record exists or is inferred.

If a receiving host wants to specify a priority for which of IPv6 or IPv4 it prefers to receive traffic over, it must have two names, one for its IPv4 interface(s) and one for its IPv6 one(s) and then put in an explicit set of MX records that bind separate priorities to those two names. So again no issue with whether a host looks for an AAAA record if it cannot find an MX.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>