It was pointed out by Erik Nordmark that SRV doesn't allow arbitrary
wild cards:
> I think there is one "bug": In section 3.6 you are saying that
> SRV records can achieve a diversion mechanism similar to MX records.
> I don't think that is the case since it would require non-terminal wildcards as
> in
> _ftp._tcp.*.example.com
> to do a diversion akin to MX records - such things are not allowed in the DNS.
>
Brian
Rob Austein wrote:
>
> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 17:06:13 -0500
> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
>
> BTW an idea that came up a while back - don't recall from who -
> was this:
> A possible conclusion is that even for
> non-store-and-forward protocols, a generic diversion mechanism
> analagous to the MX record would be of benefit.
>
> We have one. It's called the SRV RR. Your mileage may vary :).
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter (IAB Chair) Program Director, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM On assignment for IBM at http://www.iCAIR.org Attend INET 2000: http://www.isoc.org/inet2000 Non-IBM email: brian@icair.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:27 MST