nanog mailing list archives
Re: MX Record Theories
From: gb10hkzo-nanog () yahoo co uk
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 01:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
On Wed, 27 May 2009 09:48:39 -0400, <gb10hkzo-nanog () yahoo co uk> wrote:
Actually, I was thinking to myself yesterday that the email world is going to be awfully fun when IPv6 sets in and we're all running mail servers with nice long AAAA records such as fc00:836b:4917::a180:4179.
You do realize DNS queries aren't passing around addresses in ASCII? 3 additional bytes per address isn't going to break the bank.
I think you might have missed the point of my post. It was a tounge in cheek reply to the poster who suggested bad things happen if the DNS message size exceeds 512 bytes. He was commenting about AOL's MX records which currently weigh in at 507 bytes. Therefore if we were to hypothesise that the world ends at 512 bytes, then companies doing things the way AOL does, but using IPv6 addresses rather than IPv4 addresses for their MX records could run into "problems". Hope that clarifies :)
Current thread:
- MX Record Theories gb10hkzo-nanog (May 26)
- Re: MX Record Theories Alex H. Ryu (May 26)
- Re: MX Record Theories Valdis . Kletnieks (May 26)
- Re: MX Record Theories Mark Andrews (May 26)
- Re: MX Record Theories Bobby Mac (May 28)
- Re: MX Record Theories David Conrad (May 28)
- Re: MX Record Theories Mark Andrews (May 28)
- Re: MX Record Theories William Herrin (May 26)
- Message not available
- Re: MX Record Theories gb10hkzo-nanog (May 26)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: MX Record Theories gb10hkzo-nanog (May 27)
- Message not available
- Re: MX Record Theories gb10hkzo-nanog (May 28)
- Message not available