>
> Before we can put the issue of AAAA implicit MX to bed, we need to get
> an answer to the question of how much AAAA implicit MX is already being
> used in the real world.
>
> It's been postulated that the current deployment of this and its use is
> low. However, RFC 3974 (SMTP Operational Experience in Mixed IPv4/v6
> Environments), was published three years ago, and it mandates AAAA
> implicit MX (as much as an informational document can mandate anything).
>
> So I'm looking for information from people who are currently working in
> the IPv6-based email world.
>
> I'm assuming that a number of email sites over in Asia are already
> IPv6-enabled, and there are probably other enclaves as well. So I'm
> looking for information on actual email deployment and sites.
>
> I'm looking for help answering these questions:
>
> * How are existing IPv6-enabled mail sites actually dealing with
> missing MX records?
>
> * Are the IPv6-enabled email sites mostly following the
> recommendations found in RFC 3974?
>
> * How widespread is the use of implicit MX with AAAA records? That
> is, how prevalent are email sites that do not have MX records
> but do have AAAA records?
With or without a A record?
AAAA only is very different to A+AAAA where there definitely
is a implict MX.
> * How big is the existing IPv6-enabled email world?
>
> * What problems, if any, has been experienced by following RFC
> 3974?
>
> Also, who else could I send this message to in order to gain additional
> insights?
>
> Thank you!
>
> Tony Hansen
> "shepherd for 2821bis"
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
