Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Or you could redirect attempts to ssh to host X so that they go to host > Y instead. This is not an inherently desirable feature.
Sure, but if I have write access to the DNS configuration (so that I can add the SRV record), then I don't need any SRV records to do that redirection, plain A or CNAME works fine. SRV just let's me do it on a more fine grained scale. > > If the server administrater wants it: Sure. Nobody else can really > > decide whether or not SRV is "useful" or "appropriate" for a > > particular service instance. > > Nor, for that matter, can the DNS server administrator. The server and administrator and DNS server administrator have to cooperate. If they for some reason refuse to do that, they simply can't deploy SRV in any useful way. > For instance, http://example.com:80/foo/bar will be canonicalized to > http://example.com/foo/bar - which, if there were a SRV record for > _http._tcp.example.com pointing to a different port or host, would > change the meaning of the URL. Thanks, that's a good point. It's got more to do with URL syntax than with the http protocol per se, but it still seems like it could be a real problem with using SRV records for http. Regards, /Niels -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
