[irjustin]

Hard disagree - only because if you didn't have DNS you would have something else in its place. But, we understand DNS _very_ well.

People, services, machines, etc need to "dial" canonical-somewhere. Whatever does the canonical management is the piece that when it breaks everything breaks.

Doesn't matter if it's DNS, EIP rotation, some HA proxy, whatever. It'll break.

It's actually that DNS is so well understood that it doesn't fail more often.

So no, DNS is for IT Infra.

[louwrentius]

> Whatever does the canonical management is the piece that when it breaks everything breaks.

That is absolutely true. I believe that a solution where you provision a text file with an updated ip address or /etc/hosts file is inherently simpler, less risky and easier to recover from, although I admit I don't explicitly state this in the article.

[irjustin]

I'm surprised at this and some of your other responses. It makes me believe you've never managed anything at scale, but then why have such a strong opinion about DNS for infra?

> I believe that a solution where you provision a text file with an updated ip address or /etc/hosts file is inherently simpler

So simple that it doesn't scale beyond a few machines nor outside your org.

[protocolture]

>I believe that a solution where you provision a text file with an updated ip address or /etc/hosts file is inherently simpler, less risky and easier to recover from

You are wrong. Its possible that your confidence in being wrong is due to your inexperience. But you are still wrong.