For anyone who thinks that using TXT records to solve your custom problem is a quick and simple solution, think again. Or contact me, and I'll drag you out of that misconception ... And mind you: new record types are dirt cheap, and very easy to create and register. 😉
Liman, Since you opened this can of worms… ;-) I have a history in SIP where usage of SRV records to let the clients handle failover and load balancing is a standard. We’ve used it for years. I can make sure that there’s a failover between servers, between datacenters and even between service providers if needed. Now I’m working on an HTTP based API (Transparency Exchange API). We’ve talked about it. I found PAF’s URI RR that seemed to give me a good solution. Found out it wasn’t implemented in most DNS admin panels. Then I happily found the HTTP records. Found out that it wasn’t even implemented in libcurl and the failover part was not going to be implemented. The same for other popular HTTP libraries used for building API clients. I got so much push back from the team that I finally gave up on this. The HTTP world solves the problem by pushing everyone to large CDN providers with anycast BGP. This week someone opened an issue in our tracker and suggest that we implement something using DNS TXT records… My forehead is read and sore from banging against the wall. The existing records will solve our problem with failover in the API but since the world of HTTP refuse to implement it, we’re stuck. So yes, new RRs can be created. But without implementation they won’t solve any problems. Sorry for the rant. /O