On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 8:12 PM, Shumon Huque <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 6:40 PM Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote:
>
>> What we should be asking is why a service that needs multiple machines
>> isn’t using SRV. It has randomisation between servers explicitly defined
>> along with proportional load balancing.
>>
>
> That would be nice, but sadly major applications like the web, have (in my
> assessment) never seriously shown any interest in using SRV records. To
> quote some of the discussion of HTTP2 on this subject:
>
Agreed that it would be nice (and a good recommendation for protocols to
support SRV records),
but for all of the other protocols we're stuck operating today today with
the implementations we have,
not just the ones we wish we had.
(Side-note, I do recommend folks provide feedback on the ALTSVC draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schwartz-httpbis-dns-alt-svc-01
It adds enough value and extensibility beyond just SRV that
browsers show more interest in implementing it.)
> Yeah, good point about side channels. Let's stick to recommending
randomization!
Good point! Agreed. I hadn't thought about that and had otherwise been
thinking of shuffling and randomization as roughly equivalent as long as you
pick a random initial offset for the shuffling.
(More reasons to write current best practices down in a draft.)
Shuffling may also have some weird patterns showing up depending on the
relation between
TTLs and number of clients querying, but I don't know if this is ever
problematic
beyond the side-channel issue.
Erik
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
