In article
<b47992c5-17dc-f461-c1cd-1e4277f52c00(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> you
write:
On 9/28/20 10:27 AM, John Levine wrote:
Keith is asking us to expect that mail clients will move behind NAT64
even while their associated servers do not,
No, I expect IPv4 to go away. Gradually at first, and then much more
quickly. Are people here really going to insist that operators have
to maintain IPv4 servers (or ALGs or whatever they need to maintain the
illusion that the client and server see the same source IP address?).
I'm sorry but this is making less and less sense.
You appear to be saying there will be mail systems that need to send
mail to IPv4 systems, but will not have an IPv4 mail server so the
recipients can't reply to them. Really?
If you do expect the recipients to be able to reply, why wouldn't the
inbound IPv4 mail server's address be the one it uses to send mail,
like it has for the past 40 years?
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp