Why do browsers not use SRV records? [closed]
It seems like a minimal amount of work and it will make the server-side implementation of reliable websites much simpler. Also SRV records have been around for years...
Is there something I'm missing here?
Edit: @DJ Pon3 - what I'm talking about is:
one site served from two datacentres without needing BGP, but still working if either datacentre goes offline. (Can also be achieved by short DNS TTLs.)
multiple httpS servers on different ports on one IP address.
Why do browsers not use SRV records?
Because SRV records did not exist when http was onceived and because http is not assumd to be a service.
SRV records have been around for years...
Hahaha. Do you remember the time when HTTP started? Wen the first browsers were writtten? THAT was a long time ago.
SRV are first in RFC 2782. HTTP goes to RFC 1945 for 1.0. Guess which was first.
SRV records offer three things:
- Multiple hostnames - can be done without
- Alternate ports - bad idea - see below
- A fix for the CNAME at zone apex problem
Re: alternate ports - SRV records could be used as a way of running web servers on alternate ports without having to advertise that fact in the URL. This is a bad thing. Corporate firewall policies very commonly prohibit access to "unusual" ports, and encouraging the idea of using alternate ports would be poor for site accessibility.
The only tangible benefit I see is for #3 - it would allow example.com to get redirected to webhost.example.net without requiring a CNAME (which isn't permitted in a zone apex) or an A record (which is bad for zone maintenance).