To:
Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
cc:
Ted Hardie <hardie@oakthorn.com>, <Mark.Andrews@isc.org>, <dnsop@cafax.se>
From:
Mats Dufberg <dufberg@nic-se.se>
Date:
Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:29:21 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To:
<5.1.0.14.2.20020214154052.00aab4f0@mail.amaranth.net>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: SRV records - when?
On Feb 14, 2002, 17:02 (-0500) Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com> wrote: > The goal is to get an a mapping to a machine that can handle a service. SRV > as defined in RFC2782 returns both address and port number, where for what > I was thinking about, address alone would have been better. It's too bad > the address and port number were tied together. If we had it to do again, > I'd argue for one record pointing at the proper host, and separate query to > ask what port to use on that host for a particular protocol if needed. I don't see the point of having to ask twice. I don't see the problem of having the port in the data. On the contrary, by having port number, it is more flexible. > Given the present definition of SRV, the mechanism will not be able to > support services which employ multiple ports, or applications (e.g. web > browsers) will have to make assumptions (i.e. look up SRV for http, and > assume port 443 for the same host for https) or else sites will not > function correctly. You can handle it by having more than one SRV record. Mats ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mats Dufberg <dufberg@nic-se.se> ----------------------------------------------------------------------