nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2 () dcrocker net>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 17:07:09 -0700
On 3/25/2014 10:41 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
(1) Architectural layers are a protocol design construction, only, which assist with standardization. They are not a separation of responsibilities.
Actually, they are specifically a separation of responsibilities.That the separation doesn't work adequately and all the time means that pragmatics requires wandering across layer boundaries. But pragmatics also dictate being extremely careful when choosing to do that.
A SMTP server has to take care to have an implementation of all layers.
There are two possible meanings to that sentence.The first prompts a 'duh' reaction, since SMTP (usually) runs over TCP/IP. So the server won't be very useful unless it 'has' an implementation of all layers.
The other interpretation is that an SMTP package needs to have its own version of TCP and IP. This, of course, is silliness. SMTP packages do not typically implement TCP or IP. They might pay quite a lot of attention to those lower layers, but they don't implement them.
(2) The IP protocol layer is not actually independent. Moving to IPv6 does in fact have effective new requirements for SMTP servers.
Mostly, no. Not completely no, of course, but mostly.Language like #2 is leading quite a few folk to try to treat email over IPv6 as if it will be a separate service from the one currently running over v4. It won't be a separate service. Or, at least, it has better not be. The success of email has been through seamless, end-to-end integration, not through disparate silos with different service models. By way of example, please highlight which email packages require or even allow an author to dictate which version of IP to send over.
For anything that someone thinks should be done for v6, pursue it instead as a change for the entire global service. It's fine for v6-related issues to /motivate/ global changes, but don't isolate the work to v6 platforms.
(4) When a major change will [by necessity] be made to any layer underlying the MTA application on the protocol stack, now is also a good time to look at the overall service as a whole.
Sure, but not 'also'. Rather 'only', except for relatively trivial layer convergence gluing.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Robert Drake (Mar 26)
- Re: IPv6 address literals probably aren't SMTP either John Levine (Mar 26)
- Re: IPv6 address literals probably aren't SMTP either Robert Drake (Mar 26)
- Re: IPv6 address literals probably aren't SMTP either John R. Levine (Mar 26)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Owen DeLong (Mar 26)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Franck Martin (Mar 27)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Owen DeLong (Mar 27)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Tony Finch (Mar 27)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Jimmy Hess (Mar 25)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Dave Crocker (Mar 26)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Jeff Kell (Mar 25)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP John Levine (Mar 25)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Barry Shein (Mar 26)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Dave Crocker (Mar 26)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Barry Shein (Mar 26)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Blake Hudson (Mar 27)