DNS TXT/SRV Record

[chibisuke]

just another vaporware feature.
I mean they got their (in many cases NOT working) reinvention of the wheel, and now most likely think specs are there to break them.
The TODO entry is just so that ppl that want to use the standarts don't always bug them asking for it.

just my 2 cent however

[Tomas]

...2...

You do not have to be so mean. Do you know how many code developers are working on teamspeak3? ;-)
Not to mention how long is testing cycle...
Look for some youtube videos with words like "my day of a developer" in meantime.... and I guess your gun safety will fall out.

[shadow_lmd]

You do not have to be so mean. Do you know how many code developers are working on teamspeak3? ;-)

Seriously, I can make these changes myself, if they give me piece of source code where client is resolving hostname. This is such a simple request, even a baby can code it. They add tonns of weird features and changes that very few people will ever use and keep ignoring this request which really makes sense. When I read changelogs for client, I can only imagine, why 90% of that was even cared about. Every change in 3.0.6 changelog required more work than needed to implement this request.

God, I hate closed source software sometimes.

[chibisuke]

I'm a developer myself so I know that its like and honestly, a this is a change that is less than 10 lines of code, and... including unit-test - done in less than an hour.

They didn't manage to get in done in 9 months... do yes I call it vaporware feature. Hot air and nothing happening.

and looking at the release notes of 3.0.6.. honestly their project manager simply failed at assigning prioritys.

[SilentStorm]

That is what is currently being done with TSDNS just that there is an application in between and you don't have to run a webserver or need to have the file world readable.

[chibisuke]

Simple speaking this is possible to implement, but it has some very big disadvantages from the system administrator side.

You're again establishing a TCP connection to process a request, which causes load on a system which is not ment to be accessed by the TS Client at all.

In the end it boils down to.... why should a seperate request being made to query that information, when the DNS Servers already can deliver it free of charge, and without any overhead at all.

- user enters the hostname
- client sends a DNS query asking for the SRV Record
- if no SRV Record exists, client can fall back to A Records
- client connects

also there are a few things to keep in mind:
- DNS Records are cacheable.
- webserver doesn't always exist
- TSDNS Server is seperate deamon that is required to run.
- DNS Server is prerequirement for hostnames and always there
- for HTTP or TSDNS requests get sent to a server that doesn't need to have anything to do with the ts server, and therefor causes an additional point of failure, and... as the server isn't nescessarily aware of this kind of requests, causes blocks in the firewall ect.ect.

Lots of smart ppl dealt with that kind of problems already when the IETF released RFC 2782.
I don't see how reinventing the wheel, without first trying the ready made wheels could improve anything there.

[Tomas]

chibisuke come on, don't forget this part of teamspeak3:
http://forum.teamspeak.com/showthrea...953#post312953

As for jupiter4 smart guy:
Look fellow, DNS system is already out there. It has more than two servers(usually geographically isolated) providing same content. In most cases there might be even 4 or more. The most important zones(data that DNS serves) are even on 13 servers(in some cases server is not exact, it is serverfarm, and anycast servers). Now what aside not having redundancy and reach-ability would you get from using single webserver providing the data? Or some custom made application that again as webserver uses text file? And before you try to tell me that you would run even more than one webserver, while you are already using more than one DNS server to get on the damm webserver...... I would ask, how would you keep the data in sync? And secondly THINK GREEN !

[Thor Erik]

any chance of seeing this any time soon?

Without knowing TS3's codebase, implementing SRV records aren't that difficult, considering TS3 doesn't have any sort of clustering abilities.

[dante696]

This is currently on developers todo and work in progress. But it's not that easy, as everybody here says ;-(
It won't be included, when client 3.0.7 will be released, but i guess it comes with client 3.0.8.
(This is no official release statement, because it's done when it was developed and tested)

[Neo-Vortex]

But it's not that easy, as everybody here says ;-(

If you send me the .cpp file that does the TSDNS lookup (or even just that function!) I'd gladly add in SRV lookups immediately before the TSDNS lookup and have it return the server found with SRV records if it exists, or if not fall through and look up TSDNS instead and send it back to you guys free of charge and sign away any rights I have to the code written as long as it means getting included in the next release cycle possible (ie, I can understand if it's not the next release if it's in feature-freeze, but the next after that for example).

[shadow_lmd]

So, 3.0.7 is out and there is still no SRV records support. Good job, developers.

[SilentStorm]

So, 3.0.7 is out and there is still no SRV records support. Good job, developers.

It was already stated it won't be included in version 3.0.7 - see two posts above your own...

[shadow_lmd]

But it's not that easy, as everybody here says ;-(

Yeah, this is so hard, it took me 10 minutes to create a bash script that does it.

#!/bin/bash

if [[ $# -lt 1 ]]; then
  echo "Usage: $(basename $0) {hostname}"
  exit 1
fi

TMP=$(host -t srv _ts3server._udp.$1)
EC=$?

if [[ EC -gt 0 ]] || [[ $TMP =~ 'has no SRV record' ]]; then
  echo "No SRV record found for domain $1"
  exit 2
fi

WC=$(echo $TMP |wc -w)

echo "Host: $(echo $TMP |awk '{print $'$WC'}')"
echo "Port: $(echo $TMP |awk '{print $'$((WC-1))'}')"

Sample output:

$ ./getsrv.sh arts.bsrealm.net
Host: ts.bsrealm.net.
Port: 5777

[SilentStorm]

If you want to look at this from a pessimistic point of view you might think that this gets delayed until that point in time when they make the switch to Qt5 (which needs to get out of beta first...) when Qt will once again provide means to query DNS Records.
Ref: QtBug 10481.

[bofh999]

welcome to the world of abstracting layers

i agree with chibi that i woudl be much simplier and easier specially for hosters to implement this with txt records for many many many reasons. that it would be better and more relyable and really should be the way togo ..

even if i disagree with many things he said but that doenst matter in that thread (or any other) (sorry chibi but some argument you brough are nonsense but ok)

anyway still txt dns record it is the one and only real lightweight bulletproof solution

EDIT: i know many wont understand why this (real easy thing) isnt so easy for the ts devs
yea the bashscript does work but this wont change anything
the ts server has to run on multiple OS (linux ,..win..) so they use the QT framework - so you cant use an outside solution oyu have to solve it with qt - if theres a bug in a libary youre screwed - even worse if that bug is only resolved in the next major release - then you hae to make your hwole application ready for that release which can be difficult and take time

believe me - im pretty shure the devs would like that txtdns solution too - less code to maintain for a "basic" feature is always a profit.
so there must be a real reason why its such a problem