Re: interop problems with getaddrinfo() address selection

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Wed, 12 December 2007 15:34 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2TbB-0002gj-JL; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:34:13 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J2Tb9-0002Uh-I5 for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:34:11 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2Tb8-0002PT-KP for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:34:10 -0500
Received: from ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2Tb7-0007th-43 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:34:10 -0500
X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned
X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:53429) by ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1J2Tb4-0007YD-PA (Exim 4.67) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:34:06 +0000
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1J2Tb4-0005y4-PL (Exim 4.67) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:34:06 +0000
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:34:06 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Subject: Re: interop problems with getaddrinfo() address selection
In-Reply-To: <475ED78A.2070608@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712121530300.24448@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <200712062020.PAA16213@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712071735070.24448@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <475B0ABC.5090806@cs.utk.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712092000150.29087@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <475C5047.3010807@cs.utk.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712100739410.29087@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <200712101815.NAA27674@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712101935070.24448@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <200712102311.SAA01012@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> <475DDAA7.3060308@cs.utk.edu> <20071211094746.GA29759@nic.fr> <475ED78A.2070608@network-heretics.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c
Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> Per RFC 2782, SRV only applies to protocols that are specified to use
> it.  Even then, it's not clear that SRV is good for dynamic load balancing.

That's OK: we're talking about static load balancing. The SRV and MX
specifications both require the client to randomize the RRs, so they
achieve this goal.

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
SOUTHEAST ICELAND: SOUTHWESTERLY 3 OR 4 BACKING SOUTHERLY 6 TO GALE 8, PERHAPS
SEVERE GALE 9 LATER. VERY ROUGH, OCCASIONALLY HIGH LATER. OCCASIONAL RAIN.
MODERATE OR GOOD.