DNS Resolution via iRules: NAME::lookup vs RESOLV::lookup

I remember battling away with NAME::resolv a few years back when we had to connect to a third party SOAP service by name only, as they reserved the right to move their service between a range of IP addresses without informing anyone (which seems reasonable really, as the DNS A record would always be valid)

 

 

It's interesting what ideas that could previously be judged to be daft are now judged to be totally suitable once the feature set is in place to make the idea possible!

 

 

Only step past this could be to actually be able to make pool members dynamically resolveable - another idea that was deemed bad due to the latency it would enduce... but how long until that's also available as an option? Or even an entire pool which is totally managed automatically from just an FQDN, adding and removing (disabling?) pool members as they start / stop being returned in DNS lookups? It's almost treading on GTM's toes, but not quite. You've got me thinking now...