Hector Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
