Hector Santos <hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com> wrote:
John Leslie wrote:
My hope has been that an IPv6-only host speaking SMTP to the rest of
the world would:
- look for an MX RR pointing to an AAAA RR
- if it finds one, use that AAAA RR
- if not, look for an MX (explicit or implied) pointing to an A RR
- if it finds one, pass the email to a friendly relay speaking IPv4
_ if not, give the usual error
- advertise an MX RR pointing to an A RR
(in addition to any pointing to AAAA RRs)
I'm confused. To me, when you say "IPv6-only", that implies it doesn't
support IPv4 in any direct way. Isn't that correct?
Mostly...
The distinction I intend is that the host has no IPv4 connectivity.
This strikes me as a more reasonable long-term algorithm than
requiring all mail from an IPv6 user to go through a SMTP server with
both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity.
It may be that the consensus here prefers Hector's solution: if so,
I suppose I should shut up. But please think long-term: we want something
that can work today and continue working for 20 years, by which time
IPv4 should be as rare as IPv6 is today.
I don't think I have been any different from what you desire. We might
said it in different ways but I think we all want the same thing.
It's hard to tell...
Undeniably, we could stipulate that an IPv6-only domain MUST pass
all outgoing email to an IPv4-capable host. That is not what I want.
Your posting led me to believe it was what you wanted.
My only real point about the IPv6 related considerations was how it
would be stated in a kludged up, "spaghetti" 2821bis in such a way
that will promote interoperability issues with the dominant IPv4
market for now and the foreseeable future.
It's hard, again, to tell what you mean by this. I certainly do
not desire a "spaghetti" 2821bis. To me, a 2821bis that's hard to
understand and implement _can't_ promote interoperability.
I think Tony's decision was the right one - FOR 2821bis.
I'm forced to face the unfortunate fact that anything I write will
be interpreted as an attack on Tony by some people (fortunately _not_
by Tony himself).
The folks who are best at protocol design _don't_ automatically
forget an idea when the majority rejects it. (And neither do I.)
They do, however, shift their concentration to a different area.
I believe I have done so. Others may disagree...
I could elaborate more about IPv6 concerns but overall I think we
still do not know what all the real issues with IPv6 implementations
in a IPv4 world [may be]
We don't need to know "all" the issues in order to design "an"
algorithm for interaction. I have suggested one. (Its mirror image
should work in the opposite direction.)
and this is why I wish to see a new effort for a modern, consolidated
SMTP Ipv6/4 technical/functional/migration spec.
Are you volunteering?
The key word is consolidated, and I think this spec can augment
2821bis draft standard.
"Augment" is certainly OK... "Override" probably isn't.
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>