On Sun, 6 Apr 2008, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: > > At 11:38 +0200 on 04/05/2008, Michael Storz wrote about Re: current > usage of AAAA implicit MX?: > > > > - Number of your IPv6 MTAs which must be located via AAAA (ie: Which > >> belong to a FQDN with no IPv6 MX). > > > >None. And this is also true for IPv4. All of the hundreds of local MTAs in > >the Munich Scientific Network (MWN) are routed via MX RRs to our MTAs or > >to the MTAs of their departemental email servers. Port 25 is blocked from > >the Internet to the MWN since 10 years. > > > >Does this answer your question? > > Yes. In your case, there is (as there should be) no reason to support > AAAA-Fallback in the absence of an MX record (since there are no > missing MX records). > > Since you were talking about domains SENDING to you (and your MTAs > are dual stack), an interesting question is what is the MX status of > those who send to you via IPv6 - IOW: How many of the MAIL-FROM FQDNs > have no MX or A records but only AAAA? I am NOT asking you to provide > this info but only say that it is a useful metric for the > AAAA-Fallback issue. > >
There where none. As I said in that message: "160 domains have a path back over IPv6, 155 via MX RRs and 5 via A/AAAA RRs only:" The 5 hosts without MX RRs were dual-stack. Michael Storz
