Yes. It should be that you said. The AFSDB records must be supported. I would implement them step by step.
As by SRV records would provides VLDB servers and PTS servers separately, and with no default ports, that the kafs would have something changed, I thougth. So I would to have a look. Thank you! 2010/4/9 Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email protected]>: > --On Friday, April 09, 2010 09:27:09 PM +0800 Wang Lei > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks! RFC1183 seems old. The SRV RR provides more information. I >> will use the SRV RR, if needed. I would judge the kafs and talk with >> my project mentor. > > Old is not the same as no longer in use. For example, RFC's 791, 792, and > 793 describe important standard protocols which are in wide use today, in > basically the same form as described 29 years ago. > > The choice of whether to publish AFSDB and/or SRV records is up to a cell > administrator. As a client implementor, you should support both. AFSDB > records are widely deployed today, and it is not reasonable to tell users of > your software that they cannot talk to cells using them without first > convincing the cell adminstrator to convince his/her DNS administrator to > publish SRV records. In some organizations, that process could take months > or years! > > -- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <[email protected]> > Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA > > -- Best Wish. Wang Lei _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
