[150237] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Common operational misconceptions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Sun Feb 19 21:18:48 2012
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:17:32 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <825545E3-D383-49FB-A15F-3565A3A504C5@delong.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I have running code to make the reverse translations, with
>> which protocols such as ftp with PORT commands are working.
> No, I think you do not understand...
How can't I understand several minor issues with the running code.
> I have 15 FTP servers and 22 web servers behind it.
> I want people to be able to go to ftp://<hostname> and/or http://<hostname> for each of them.
> Please explain to me how your code solves this problem?
See
draft-ohta-urlsrv-00.txt
DNS SRV RRs of a domain implicitly specify servers and port numbers
corresponding to the domain.
By combining URLs and SRV RRs, no port numbers have to be specified
explicitly in URLs, even if non-default port numbers are used, which
makes URLs more concise for port based virtual and real hosting,
where port based real hosting means that multiple servers sharing an
IP address are distinguished by port numbers to give service for
different URLs, which is the case for port forwarded servers behind
NAT and servers with realm specific IP.
> Yeah, thought so.
The draft has been available since September 29, 2011.
Masataka Ohta
