On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:10:38AM -0700, SM wrote:
> At 19:32 25-03-2008, Bill Manning wrote:
> > er... what about zones w/ A & AAAA rr's and no MX's?
> > when I pull the A rr's, you are telling me that SMTP
> > stops working? That is so broken.
>
> SMTP will still work as the above case is covered by the implicit MX rule.
presuming the existance of an MX... (thats the "implicit"
part of the "rule").
> The implicit MX rule creates an ambiguity during the transition from
> IPv4 to IPv6. That's discussed in Section 5.2 of the draft:
>
> "The appropriate actions to be taken will either depend on local
> circumstances, such as performance of the relevant networks and any
> conversions that might be necessary, or will be obvious
> (e.g., an IPv6-only client need not attempt to look up
> A RRs or attempt to reach IPv4-only servers). Designers of
> SMTP implementations that might run in IPv6 or dual stack
> environments should study the procedures above, especially the
> comments about multihomed hosts, and, preferably, provide mechanisms
> to facilitate operational tuning and mail interoperability between
> IPv4 and IPv6 systems while considering local circumstances."
>
what this daft is trying to do is force the presumptive
existance of an MX in a zone into an explict rule that
forces the existance of an MX, else SMTP fails.
> We could look at the question by asking whether the fallback MX
> behavior should be an operational decision. But then we would be
> treating IPv4 and IPv6 differently.
IPv4 and IPv6 are different.
--bill
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
