On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:59:47PM +0100,
Gary Levell <gary(_at_)exclaimer(_dot_)net> wrote
a message of 12 lines which said:
I beleive that the current draft specification
(http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-01.txt) handles the IPv6
mechanism
It seems so but it is not on the Web pages I quoted. Hence my work on
reiventing the wheel :-)
adequately,
I'm note sure.
1) IPv6 addresses in the draft are wrong (12AB:0:0:CD30 is not a legal
address).
2) SPF records like ip6:12AB:1:CD30 are more difficult to parse (you
can no longer use greedy regexps and people in MARID keep saying that
the great thing about SPF is that you can parse it with regexps).
3) RFC 2373 has been obsoleted by RFC 3513
I've run into some issues with PTR & IPv6 mainly around my inability
to get any sensible reverse record setup which is probably my
misunderstanding more than anything else, but the "a" & "mx"
mechanisms already handle the IPv4 & IPv6, and by using the
dual-cidr-length modifiers, you can control the range of addresses.
Interesting mechanism. Mohsen Souissi thought about it before
rejecting it because it is more difficult to read for IPv4-only
engineers (not programs).