4 ms·
Somewhat OT, if v3 has not yet been ratified, is there a chance to get SRV record support added for http? That could indirectly tie into QUIC optimization.
by LinuxBender 8y ago
Somewhat OT, if v3 has not yet been ratified, is there a chance to get SRV record support added for http? That could indirectly tie into QUIC optimization.
- teddyh 8y agoIt would be wonderful, but not likely, since Google is pushing it, and they gave completely spurious reasons for not including it in HTTP/2. I see no reason for this to be any different.
- wmf 8y agoYou'd need Chrome to do some SRV experiments for a few years before proposing it.
- chaz6 8y agoThere is a 19-year old bug open for SRV support in Firefox [1] and it recently got updated (marked as blocking #1435798 APIs for p2p web applications) [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14328 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14328
- londons_explore 8y agoThe goal would be to use a SRV record rather than an A record for http? Whats the benefit?
- wmf 8y agoUsing ports other than 443.
- teddyh 8y agoAnd load balancing without a separate server to act as a load balancer in front. Just announce a bunch of servers and all clients will all just pick one, with the ratio of servers which you adjust! No more proxy!
- LinuxBender 8y agoExactly! This also means the clients become more self healing. Throw a couple Anycast IP's out there, add some SRV records, and entire datacenter routing issues could be side-stepped by the client. That is something load balancers can't even directly handle. Today we hack around that using GSLB and short lived DNS, which makes DNS DDoS more effective.