PTR records for IPv6

[Mohacsi Janos]

Dear All,


In my opinion  requiring PTR for unauthenticated SMTP session is 
reasonable:
- For authenticated sessions (users sending mails to SMTP server for 
delivery) this is not necessary - since user is identified by the 
authentication
- For non-authenticated sessions (mail delivery between MTAs and between 
relay servers) is reasonable to ask your partner who you are talking to. 
If there is no better method than PTR, than rely on PTR.  So you have a 
defined server for MTA purpose, why you don't put PTR record on it? The 
your partner can build some credibility information on this server...

For other hosts (not acting as a defined server) I don't think it is 
reasonable to require PTRs.

 	Best Regards,


Janos Mohacsi
Head of HBONE+ project
Network Engineer, Director Network and Multimedia
NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY
Co-chair of Hungarian IPv6 Forum
Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F  4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882

On Mon, 2 Sep 2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> So, is there any real operational value in this, or is it just
> a case of "we did it for v4 so it must be right for v6"?
>
>   Brian
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [nznog] Orcon IPv6 rDNS delegation
> Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 02:08:47 +1200
> From: Jonathan Spence <jonathan.spence at power-business.co.nz>
> Reply-To: jonathan.spence at power-business.co.nz
> To: <nznog at list.waikato.ac.nz>
>
> Hi everyone, Google have just started enforcing PTR records for IPv6
> addresses delivering to Gmail. Our IPv6 works great with Orcon but having
> serious issues getting delegation back to our nameservers setup.
>
> <irrelevant operational details omitted>
>