why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition

Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Wed Mar 26 03:09:02 UTC 2014

On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:51:11 -0400, Rob McEwen said:
> On 3/25/2014 10:25 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
> >
> > Like I said in a previous response, if you are going to make rdns a
> > requirement, why not make SPF and DKIM mandatory as well?
> many ISPs ALREADY require rDNS. So making that standard official for
> IPv6 is isn't asking for much! It is a NATURAL progression.

There's still a lot of ancient mail servers out there in v4 land, that were
set up before PTRs were pseudo-required by most places, so we end up cutting
them some slack under a grandfather clause.

There's probably less than a dozen ASNs that have mailservers that speak
IPv6 that were deployed before requring PTRs became common, so they have
much less of an excuse not to do so....
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 848 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140325/426cf66d/attachment.bin>

More information about the NANOG mailing list