configure several CNAME records to use multi-CDN service is also widely used in industry, though this is not allowed by DNS standards. shall we support this on protocal level? like defining new CNAMEx record which contains "weight" attribute.
[email protected] From: Ondřej Surý Date: 2019-05-12 14:59 To: Brian Dickson; dnsop Subject: Re: [DNSOP] ANAME high-level benefit question Also, I would argue that the ability to run ANAME at your own infrastructure might drive less people to the “managed DNS” land or allow them to migrate away without a significant loss of functionality. One way or another, ANAME-like behaviour became defacto industry standard and we need to have a solution on a protocol level. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý [email protected] > On 11 May 2019, at 16:34, Ray Bellis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 11/05/2019 15:54, Dave Lawrence wrote: > >> I have a related question ... is allowing only targets on their own >> infrastructure currently a limitation most such providers have? > > I don't know about "most", but certainly some. See e.g. the attached > message posted here 2018/06/25. > > Ray > > <[DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CNAME at > apex.eml>_______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
