SRV resource records and web browsers
Mark Andrews
Mark_Andrews at isc.org
Mon Jun 7 23:44:13 UTC 2004
> BM> The only advantage that the suggestion of "fixing CNAMEs" has
> BM> over this is that there are far fewer servers than browsers,
> BM> so it could be easier to phase in that sort of change.
>
> It's not quite as clear cut as that. At least one popular web browsing
> software has the capability of being automatically upgraded with updates that
>
> are published by its manufacturer, which a significant number of its users
> take advantage of (and have even been pressured, by events, to take
> advantage of in recent years). It would not be _that_ hard to roll out to
> a reasonably large number of users an updated version of that browser that
> used "SRV" resource records. No DNS server software manufacturer has an
> equivalent mechanism for rolling out updated versions of its DNS server
> software.
>
> BM> _www._tcp.www.mycompany.com. IN SRV 0 1 80 server.hostingcompany.com.
>
> _www-http._tcp.example.com. 86400 IN SRV 0 0 80 hosting.example.net.
>
> by strict reading of STD 2 and RFC 2782.
IANA has the following in port assignments which forms part of the
current version of STD 2:
http 80/tcp World Wide Web HTTP
http 80/udp World Wide Web HTTP
www 80/tcp World Wide Web HTTP
www 80/udp World Wide Web HTTP
www-http 80/tcp World Wide Web HTTP
www-http 80/udp World Wide Web HTTP
Going backwards in time you have.
RFC 1700:
www-http 80/tcp World Wide Web HTTP
www-http 80/udp World Wide Web HTTP
RFC 1340:
www 80/tcp World Wide Web HTTP [TXL]
www 80/udp World Wide Web HTTP [TXL]
More information about the bind-users
mailing list