-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 879
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Proposal: support multiple A-records for redundant container aliases on a network #1054
Comments
@jbalonso the support for multiple A-records made into docker for the upcoming 1.11 release via #974. Infact you can try the 1.11.0-RC2 now and give us feedback : https://github.com/docker/docker/releases/tag/v1.11.0-rc2. Please do :) |
@jbalonso 1.11 RC2 has support for multiple AAAA records as well. If you can give it a try and let us know of any issues you see that would be useful. |
\o/ Thanks for the pointer: I searched pretty hard for evidence that this wasn't forgotten, but most discourse on the matter was tangled up with the old links feature... and my concerns were scattered across At present, I have an uncomfortable workaround. I'd test 1.11.0-rc2, but I'm on a project with a deadline. 😞 I'm not certain what the issue closing convention is here, but in case the convention is "close when it ships", I'll leave this open for you. |
I think this can be closed, now that docker 1.11 has shipped |
@thaJeztah Yes. Thanks. |
For basic load balancing and service discovery, it would help if a container could discover (via the embedded DNS) the addresses of all containers on a network providing a service (such as might be given in the form of an alias when those containers were joined to the network). The lack of this capability is particularly glaring when using
docker-compose scale
, where you'd naively expect the IP address of every container started as part of a service to be obtainable by a DNS query for the name of the service.I have seen discussion for such support in #737, where the discussion hinted that #767 would cover the matter, but both of these issues appear to have closed without this capability appearing.
(Alternatively: if I'm missing something obvious, I'd love to hear about it.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: