Summary:	ASTERISK-01780: [patch] srvlookup defaults to off - non RFC compliant.
Reporter:	dedmundson (dedmundson)	Labels:
Date Opened:	2004-06-08 04:42:29	Date Closed:	2004-09-25 02:43:29
Priority:	Minor	Regression?	No
Status:	Closed/Complete	Components:	Core/General
Versions:		Frequency of Occurrence
Related Issues:
Environment:		Attachments:	( 0) srv.txt
Description:	Currently SRV-rr lookups is set to off by default, which means that default asterisk installs can not place calls to sites that rely on the standard lookup behaviour. If this code is now stable, shouldn't Asterisk be adhering to the standard by default, only retaining the ability to turn off SRV lookups where there is good reason to, rather than putting the onus on the (often inexperienced) user to track down why their calls don't work?
Comments:	By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2004-06-08 14:10:48 Patch for sip.con.sample added with some additional information. By: Mark Spencer (markster) 2004-06-08 16:10:52 I still think SRV records are an immensely stupid idea. I don't want to wait for a DNS failure, RFC be darned.  You have the ability to turn on strict RFC compliance, Fortunately srv lookups are bypassed by peer declarations, but still, i'm not convinced they should be on by default.  How about we just comment better in the config file that it must be turned on if you want strict compliance? By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2004-06-08 16:21:01 With the number of people connecting Asterisk to external SIP services, DNS srv support is a requirement for a lot of these to work. We will get quite a lot of support if it's not turned on by default. So will will get to a situation where it's required whatever you or I or anyone else think about SRV records... :-) I still vote for turning it on. If you don't agree with me I think you can add my comments to sip.conf.sample with a "no" - the text in this patch will still work... Or? By: Mark Spencer (markster) 2004-06-08 17:37:15 Can you explain your comment about how it "disables" your ability to talk to other hosts on the internet? By: Brian West (bkw918) 2004-06-08 22:31:24 I must agree that SRV is silly .. I don't use them.. bet I never will. By: andrewkt (andrewkt) 2004-06-08 23:54:55 Is there something specific to the SRV implemenatation that makes them so evil? Do you feel the same way about MX records? What about CNAMEs? Don't they all serve basically the same purpose? Situation: I own the domain mydomain.com. My domain is hosted by myhost.net. Therefore, mydomain.com and www.mydomain.com are A and/or CNAME records to the IP of a server belonging to myhost.net. The problem: Provide user@mydomain.com inbound SIP for users of mydomain.com. Unacceptable answers: 1) Instruct the users that their SIP address is user@sip.mydomain.com. (Lame) 2) Host the main domain on my own bandwidth. (I pay someone to manage the web server, duh.) Please describe the asterisk solution. By: Brian West (bkw918) 2004-06-09 00:14:56 SRV would in a way bypass the dialplan whouldn't it?  I like EVERYTHING going thru my dialplan.   bkw By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2004-06-09 01:18:06 bkw: It still goes through the dial plan, it's just a matter of finding the proper SIP proxy for a domain. Markster: If you do not enable it, you will not be able to reach a lot of domains, since there is *no* A record for that domain, only SRV records to one or several SIP proxies that is responsible for SIP services in that domain. By: Mark Spencer (markster) 2004-06-09 09:00:30 In spite of my great distaste for SRV records, I have decided to capitulate to the desire for RFC compliance.  Remember that HTTP didn't need SRV records, and if HTTP doesn't, I see no reason that anything else should.