On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 09:05:21AM +0200, Petr Špaček wrote: > On 18/09/2018 22:02, JW wrote: > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> > > > >> I would also expect a relatively large client population using SRV records > >> given the rate Firefox and Chrome browsers are upgraded. SRV lookups > >> work for lots ofother protocols. SRV records also make it through > >> firewalls and IDS today. > >> > > > > Hi Mark, > > > > I agree SRV is the obvious choice for a greenfield protocol but there is > > HTTP code sprinkled /everywhere/. I can't imagine all those forgotten > > scripts, lonely IOT devices, and troubleshooting guides are going to be > > as easy to solve as updating chrome and firefox. > > > > Whatever the solution, I feel it should be as transparent to the client > > as possible. CNAME would fit this bill but the negative impact is > > largely unknown. > > TL;DR: Experiments with CNAME @ apex showed that it is not going to work > if the domain has e.g. MX records for e-mail. > > Ondrej Sury describes his experimental results in presentation here: > https://github.com/IETF-Hackathon/ietf102-project-presentations/blob/master/dns_hackathon-presentation.pdf
Aren't these results with current state of implementations? A cached CNAME is expected to be matched against future type queries when following RFC 1034/1035 behavior. A change in behavior where resolvers expect that CNAME (as a fallback type) will co-exist with other types will work properly. Mukund _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop