Saku Ytti <s...@ytti.fi> wrote: > Any opinions on SVCINFO. I was really big fan of SRV until I read the > draft, it made really compelling arguments to me.
It doesn't provide indirection, and it piles potentially-unrelated SVCINFO records on to the same QNAME. It would be better to prefix the QNAME with _service (e.g. _http) and provide target hostname, protocol, and port information in the RDATA. > Goal should be that 1 query returns all the information client needs to decide > how it wants to connect to service, SVCINFO delivers this. SVCINFO still requires concurrent A and AAAA queries. > If we had had SVINFO (or even SRV) for years, we'd likely have less BGP bloat, I don't see how it does anything to reduce the need for anycast. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ Fisher, German Bight: South or southeast, backing east for a time, 4 or 5, occasionally 6. Slight or moderate. Thundery showers, fog patches. Moderate or poor, occasionally very poor. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
