[Asrg] IPv6 spam data

[Tim Chown <tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

Hi,

As promised in the ASRG meeting in Dublin, I will gather some stats
over the next week or two and assemble a draft-format doc with some
initial 'ball park' musings, including our local scenario/config.

If people want advice on dual-stack MX setup, see RFC3974.   This
document is 3 years old, but I believe what it says is still considered
best practice.  

Tim

On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 10:26:45AM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> John Levine wrote:
> 
> > Someone pointed out that in some popular dual stack systems,
> > connections from IPv4 addresses appear as IPv6 addresses
> > in :FFFF:0000:0000/96
> 
> Yes, that is what I meant when I mentioned RFC 4408, (ab)using
> ::FFFF:127.0.0.2 as an "obvious" test entry.  Another proposal
> in the meeting was to use one of the IPv6 example addresses
> for this purpose.  But I can't remember the example addresses
> without my 4408 cheat sheet, an obvious entry would be better.
> 
> > The immediate question is whether to add a sentence or two
> > to the DNSBL spec saying that if you have a DNSBL listing
> > both v4 and v6 addresses, and you list a v4 address, you
> > SHOULD or MUST also list the corresponding embedded v6
> 
> No.  It is the job of the clients to get this right, they are
> supposed to ask for the IPv4 form of these addresses.  With
> ::FFFF:127.0.0.2 as a possible *exception* for test purposes.
> 
>  Frank
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

-- 
Tim


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg