IPv6 address literals probably aren't SMTP either

John Levine johnl at iecc.com
Thu Mar 27 03:28:28 UTC 2014


In article <5333970A.6070107 at direcpath.com> you write:
>
>On 3/26/2014 10:16 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>>
>> and user at 2001:db8::1.25 with user at 192.0.2.1:25. Who had the good idea to use : for IPv6 addresses while this is the
>separator for the port in IPv4? A few MTA are confused by it.
>At the network level the IPv6 address is just a big number.  No 
>confusion there.  At the plaintext level the naked IPv6 address should 
>be wrapped in square brackets.
>
>From:
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.2

It's messier than that.  See RFC 5321 section 4.1.3.  I have no idea
whether anyone has actually implemented IPv6 address literals and if
so, how closely they followed the somewhat peculiar spec.

R's,
John



More information about the NANOG mailing list