> On 20 Jun 2018, at 8:44 am, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: > > On Jun 19, 2018, at 2:03 PM, Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> wrote: >> AIUI, a large part of the supposed issue with SRV was the inertia of the >> installed base of browsers that wouldn't know how to access them. > > I thought the more fundamental problem was the additional latency caused by > the second lookup since SRV specified domain names as targets.
Yes, they keep coming up with theoretical issues which won’t be a issue in practice. Nameservers put the address records of the server listed in the SRV record in the additional section so no second lookup is required. If the address isn’t in the cache the nameserver can look it up while the SRV reply is in flight. I’ve got code that does exactly that. Took 30 minutes to write. It’s just a different form of prefetch. If they really want the additional section populated they can define a EDNS option or flag to say to do that. At the moment most servers don’t follow CNAMEs when populating the additional section but that can also be done easily. So one SRV query with all the rest of the data in the additional section. Perfectly doable. Fallback to 2 queries with older name servers and a CNAME chain for the SRV target. > But maybe I’m misremembering. > > Regads, > -drc > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
