Hi Baptiste, thanks for the response. On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 6:32 PM Baptiste <bed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This should not happen and it's a known issue that we're working on. > > Excellent, figured you guys were probably already aware of it. Let me know if I can assist in testing. > > Actually, I tested many DNS server and some of them simply did not send > the additional records when they could not fit in the response (too small > payload for the number of SRV records). > Technically, we could try to use additional records if available and then > failover to current way of working if none found. > > True, not a lot do and I don't have a lot of hosts. I assumed it already parsed them based on reading https://www.haproxy.com/documentation/aloha/9-5/traffic-management/lb-layer7/dns-srv-records/ and took that into account when writing my DNS service. I'm a little swamped with other work at the moment, but when I get a chance I would be able to provide a DNS server (written in Go) that returns additional records to test with if that helps. > > >> I'm happy with the workaround I'll be pursing for now where my SD service >> (that originally was going to be a resolver and populate via SRV records) >> is going to write all the backend definitions to disk so this is not a >> pressing issue, just thought I'd share the limitations I discovered. My >> knowledge of C (and the internal workings of HAproxy) is not great >> otherwise this would probably be a patch submission for #1 :) >> >> Tait >> >> > I'll check that for you. (In the mean time, please keep on answering to > Aleksandar emails, the more info I'll have, the best). > > Baptiste > Thanks again, I don't have a lot of time to do any testing right now but hope to soon.
