Alexey Zakhlestin's blog - Latest Comments in DNS SRV-records support in HTTP-browsers

Re: DNS SRV-records support in HTTP-browsers

Sergey Sergeev — Mon, 04 Jan 2021 06:25:43 -0000

Let's do it 22, maybe after my death they will implement this.

Re: DNS SRV-records support in HTTP-browsers

RelatedTitle — Mon, 29 Jul 2019 23:10:38 -0000

They didn't.

Re: DNS SRV-records support in HTTP-browsers

Noman — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 09:53:36 -0000

Hi i want a sexy girlfriend<spoiler>

Re: DNS SRV-records support in HTTP-browsers

Noman — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 09:52:22 -0000

Hii
Helo

Re: DNS SRV-records support in HTTP-browsers

Filippos Vasilakis — Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:49:39 -0000

still hoping for it!

Re: DNS SRV-records support in HTTP-browsers

Mike Sadler — Wed, 19 Apr 2017 02:42:31 -0000

Yes... you can use an IP address, but in the context of SRV records (where you're trying to even further abstract the actual IP by use of FQDN's pointing to address:port, rather than just address)... it seems like an odd requirement. If you e.g. 'always' know the IP, you don't need SRV records, except to make the URI for the resource look 'pretty' (i.e. to abstract the Port, not to load balance). I'd ALWAYS have a target pointing to an 'A' record... sometimes a CNAME... but A records are safer if you do - or might - ever use certificates for the resource concerned (CN must match FQDN). Of course we use very low TTL's for records for load balanced systems. The trailing dot is a BIND thing... your DNS and, more particularly, its UI may or may not require it... most are automatic these days.

Re: DNS SRV-records support in HTTP-browsers

Mike Sadler — Wed, 19 Apr 2017 02:32:44 -0000

Ummmm.... wrong. SIP is w-a-y more time sensitive than... well, pretty much everything and SRV is almost mandatory for it. So, browser publishers don't support it because they are slack, or it needs refinement or whatever... not because SRV isn't the 'right' protocol to offer multi-address, multi-port load sharing without the expense of e.g L7 switches. An 'RFC' is exactly that, so you comment or you support. Doing nothing sucks. Sorry.

Re: DNS SRV-records support in HTTP-browsers

Elo — Tue, 14 Feb 2017 02:30:12 -0000

The reason this is not supported is that it can't serve the purpose you purport.

It works for SMTP because delays of a few minutes are not an issue. But for a timing sensitive application such as browsing, what good would this do?

In your example, the browser might first select www1.example.com. If that didn't respond in 21 seconds, the browser would then go for www2.example.com. If that didn't respond at the 42 second mark, the browser would go for www-backup.example.com.

Who exactly is going to wait 42 seconds for a page to load?

The load balancing you get with multiple A records is the best you can do for applications that require responsiveness. You can't provide responsive fault tolerance using just DNS.

And then, what exactly should the browser consider a failure that requires a fallback? What if the TCP connection can be established, but there's no HTTP response? What if there's an HTTP response, but it's an error?

This is not a bug in Mozilla. This is the absence of a feature; in this case, a braindead misfeature that ought not to be proposed.

Re: DNS SRV-records support in HTTP-browsers

Shmulik Klein — Wed, 07 Dec 2016 07:19:16 -0000

Can I use IP address in the TARGET part of a SRV record ? Who adds the
trailing dot to make the hostename absolute ? is it the DNS server or
the client ?

http://stackoverflow.com/qu...

Re: DNS SRV-records support in HTTP-browsers

Shmulik Klein — Wed, 07 Dec 2016 04:19:15 -0000

Can I use IP address in the TARGET part of a SRV record ? Who adds the trailing dot to make the hostename absolute ? is it the DNS server or the client ?

http://stackoverflow.com/qu...

Re: DNS SRV-records support in HTTP-browsers

network101 — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 03:14:32 -0000

Make that 15 years.

Re: DNS SRV-records support in HTTP-browsers

Yura — Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:17:04 -0000

Hope they will fix it before 20 years anniversary.

Re: DNS SRV-records support in HTTP-browsers

jing — Wed, 06 Aug 2014 03:54:36 -0000

it is 2014 now, seem like FF still not not srv

Re: DNS SRV-records support in HTTP-browsers

brain Steven — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 03:10:52 -0000

But it is not committed and waits for approval. I doubt, that is the longest-living bug in mozilla, but, still, 10 years is a great age for a bug. Let’s party!
_______________
Steven
DNS Look up

Re: DNS SRV-records support in HTTP-browsers

Daniel Feenberg — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:15:01 -0000

It is a weak substitute, but in my experience recent browsers will handle multiple A records for the same domain name sensibly. That is, if you have 2 A records for the same name, the browser will pick one, and if it times out, switch to the other. Since the DNS hands out the addresses in random order, this provides crude load balancing and failover. Not nearly as good as supporting SRV, but something nonetheless.

Daniel Feenberg