Re: Service vs. Port vs. SRV (following Eliot's presentation)

Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Wed, 08 November 2006 19:42 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhtJE-0002TD-2Z; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:42:04 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhtJC-0002QT-Lr for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:42:02 -0500
Received: from ka.cs.utk.edu ([160.36.56.221]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhtJB-0007IH-Ey for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:42:02 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ka.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 418A12F22A; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 14:42:59 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new with ClamAV and SpamAssasin at cs.utk.edu
Received: from ka.cs.utk.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ka.cs.utk.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l2Hzf9zpMZ0W; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 14:42:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.1.132] (c-68-48-208-49.hsd1.dc.comcast.net [68.48.208.49]) by ka.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A4052F22C; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 14:42:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <455232FC.1010005@cs.utk.edu>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:41:48 -0500
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Macintosh/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: Service vs. Port vs. SRV (following Eliot's presentation)
References: <454F8701.20302@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <454F8701.20302@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
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

> So changing our model to focus on SRV has some interesting implications.

for instance,

SRV puts more fine-grained control in the hands of a DNS administrator - 
  even in cases where the host owner and DNS admin aren't part of the 
same entity.  (do you really want your ISP dictating which ports you run 
services on, or being able to vector traffic intended for your host to 
other hosts?)

SRV slows down connection establishment.  we already have a lot of 
overhead in DNS lookups (A + AAAA records and sometimes PTR records), 
TCP setup, SSL/TLS setup, etc.

SRV has the potential to create problems if retroactively applied to 
existing apps as the behavior of a SRV-aware client will differ from 
that of a non-SRV-aware client.

the design of getaddrinfo() is such that it could be used to do SRV 
lookup, but (if not done carefully) this would break that aren't defined 
to use SRV.