nanog mailing list archives
Re: Routing wars pending?
From: Paul A Vixie <paul () vix com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 15:29:55 -0800
Absolutely agree with both Robert and Vadim that DNS need to be revised in a big way. I especially would like to see the MX record concept applied to information services (IX maybe), i.e. [...]
That's not a big revision. "Big" revisions usually entail wire protocol changes. What you want is called a "SRV" record and it was submitted to the RFC Editor for "extended last call" (befitting its experimental status) about a week ago. An earlier version can be had from any Internet Drafts repository as draft-gulbrandsen-dns-rr-srvcs-01.txt.
Has this simple concept been proposed in an IETF draft unknown to us ugly ducklings :-) Quack. Tim
Tim, next time I'd like you to do three things differently: (1) do your homework before posting widely (2) post to big-internet or nanog but not both (3) only include one copy of your .signature Paul
Current thread:
- Routing wars pending?, (continued)
- Routing wars pending? Daniel Karrenberg (Nov 16)
- Re: Routing wars pending? Vadim Antonov (Nov 15)
- Re: Routing wars pending? Tony Li (Nov 15)
- Re: Routing wars pending? Sean Doran (Nov 15)
- Re: Routing wars pending? Vadim Antonov (Nov 15)
- Re: Routing wars pending? Noel Chiappa (Nov 15)
- Re: Routing wars pending? ser-rr (Nov 16)
- Re: Routing wars pending? Robert Moskowitz (Nov 16)
- Re: Routing wars pending? Tim Bass (Nov 16)
- Re: Routing wars pending? Michael A. Patton (Nov 16)
- Re: Routing wars pending? Paul A Vixie (Nov 16)
- Re: Routing wars pending? @NANOG-LIST (Nov 16)
- Re: Routing wars pending? Tim Bass (Nov 16)
- Re: Routing wars pending? Tim Salo (Nov 16)