[16:26:40] <volans>	 godog: quick one, why we need both swift and ms-fe SVC records if they points to the same targets? Can't we unify the clients to use only one?
[16:41:19] <godog>	 volans: the idea is to use/have swift.svc for generic clients (iirc the docker registry uses it) vs the historical/specific ms-fe
[16:41:38] <godog>	 ideally the former would be its own separate cluster, someday
[16:42:16] <volans>	 ok, thanks for the context
[16:42:34] <godog>	 if you'd like to ditch one of the two I'm not opposed in principle though
[16:43:07] <volans>	 I'm just trying to figure out if the corner cases we have are just fixable tech debt or are needed for good reasons
[16:43:36] <volans>	 the fact that this CNAME might be converted to an A record for now seems good enough for me as we need to find a solution for multiple names with the same IP record anyway
[16:44:01] <volans>	 ditching it would not solve the problem per se if that's what you're asking ;)
[16:44:13] <godog>	 ack, yeah that makes sense
[16:44:42] <godog>	 that also reminds me that swift.discovery should be ms-fe.discovery really heh
[16:44:58] <volans>	 ehehe
[20:16:34] <volans>	 and netbox 2.10 is out, end of year gift :D