Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-03.txt

Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> Fri, 12 May 2017 12:21 UTC

Return-Path: <lee@asgard.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E9E12741D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 May 2017 05:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6ByonGzXbvlN for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 May 2017 05:21:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob02.registeredsite.com (atl4mhob02.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23DE512EB3A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 May 2017 05:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.210]) by atl4mhob02.registeredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v4CCGoYt015009 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 May 2017 08:16:50 -0400
Received: (qmail 3812 invoked by uid 0); 12 May 2017 12:16:50 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 88.128.80.77
X-Authenticated-UID: lee@asgard.org
Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.53.150.208?) (lee@asgard.org@88.128.80.77) by 0 with ESMTPA; 12 May 2017 12:16:49 -0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.2.170228
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 08:16:42 -0400
From: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
CC: <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <D53B1CFE.7AE7E%lee@asgard.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-03.txt
References: <20170511165852.34338.qmail@ary.lan> <59149F29.6090908@redbarn.org>
In-Reply-To: <59149F29.6090908@redbarn.org>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/djqe2nJJwYKQvIj0jDEnhw7sDWk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-03.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 12:21:41 -0000


On 5/11/17, 1:28 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of Paul Vixie"
<dnsop-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of paul@redbarn.org> wrote:

>
>
>John Levine wrote:
>>>>> In my experience, without reverse DNS it is essentially impossible
>>>>>to have
>>>>> mail delivered to the internet at large.
>>>> Yes.
>>> since this isn't an ideal or intended state of affairs, let's consider
>>> the size and shape of the box, not just what's in there.
>> 
>> What would be the operational advantage of accepting mail from IPv6
>>hosts
>> too lame to set up rDNS?
>
>we will never know, because every v6 end system will have a ptr, either
>naturally, or machine-generated for it, because v6 providers will not
>want their rank-and-file v6 endsystems to be excluded from important
>activities such as transmitting e-mail.

If ³v6 provider² includes ³residential ISP² (the topic and audience for
this draft), then the inability to transmit email is by design.
That is: ISPs commonly prevent residential users from sending email (by
default). They say this in their Terms of Service, they block port 25, and
they don¹t publish PTRs. This is consistent with recommendations by
M3AAWG[1] and BITAG[2], for instance.

[1] 
https://www.m3aawg.org/sites/default/files/document/MAAWG_Port25rec0511.pdf
 
[2] https://www.bitag.org/documents/Port-Blocking.pdf

I¹m pretty sure this is a consensus position.

>
>the operational advantage of not having ptr's for rank and file end
>systems is much easier to explain, except to v6 endsystem providers.

People who run mail servers generally understand these limitations. The
BITAG paper does recommend clear disclosure and methods to opt-out. Makes
sense to me: I want a human decided they want their system to send mail,
not a bot.

Lee