- Test - lists.nanog.org

root name servers
by Peter Lothberg 29 Jul '95

29 Jul '95

How about trying to move some of the root name servers to the exchange points? This will make them avaliable to all ISP/NSP's regardless of peering arrangements with others and would also improve connectivity to them. For security and stability reasons (aswell as political) they should not be run by a single organisation. --Peter

6 5

Re: US Domain -- County Delegations
by scharf＠vix.com 28 Jul '95

28 Jul '95

> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 00:51:03 -0400 > From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis(a)ans.net> > > Is ibm.nyse.com, dec.nyse, mci.nasdaq.com a problem? This takes the > arbitrary decision out of accepting or denying someone access to the > .com hierarchy and enforces and already strict naming. > There are two problems I see with this. There are many companies who are privately held, including billion dollar ones. Also, there are companies who have certificates traded on more than one trading place (I know of Japan/US situations.) The more fundamental question is where do you put all the companies that you are now forcing out of .com? Jerry

4 3

Re: NEW POLICY ON INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES
by Dave McGuire 28 Jul '95

28 Jul '95

On July 28, you wrote: >> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 95 09:19:42 PDT >> From: "Roy Engehausen" <enge(a)almaden.ibm.com> >> >> Just a lurker normally but how about using product/services as a >> qualifer? Examples: ibm.computers.com att.telephone.com >> specialized.bicycles.com cisco.networks.com? > > I like this one! It not only deepens the name space but can provide > some additional (read "advertising") to the user, making it an easier > proposal to sell. > > For example, I would not want to loose ior.com, but I would be more > willing to use ior.isp.com than ior.spk.wa.us (geographic). > > It shouldn't be too difficult to have your company listed under > multiple product/service categories if your company covers more than > one. I too am normally a lurker here...but I would have to agree. It also makes certain real-world situations easier. Things like "Mr. Sysadmin? You know the Internet real well, right? Can you help me find information on bicycles?" become much easier with a descriptive hierarchy like this. I like it. -Dave McGuire, Systems Digital Express Group, Incorporated mcguire(a)digex.net

1 0

to name or not name
by Hans-Werner Braun 28 Jul '95

28 Jul '95

I have an idea. Lets create a .ssn domain. Better yet, lets assume everything plain numeric is an SSN. As you all know, Vixie's SSN is 123-45-6789. Consider that address to be a middle level. At the bottom you need something that maps it to where, e.g., he can find his email. When he wants to hang out in his hotel in Costa Rica tomorrow, he may have to remap 123456789, so things can be found wherever he really wants them. Probably a host on the hotel's HIPPI switch. Point is, at the identifier-to-location mapping, things have to be flexible enough to easily and quickly be updated. Kind of like cellular auto-roaming. May be he can even use his cellular phone to beacon around where he is *really* located, so the mapper finds him, and so he may not have to do much explicitly. I, as someone who may want to send him email, should never ever even have to know his SSN specifically, because above the unique-person identifier would be a relational data base that allows my Vixie-{plus- whatever-other-attributes-I-choose} to be mapped to his ID, perhaps confirming something back with me if there is not a 1-to-1 mapping between my request and a response. Besides, it is hard enough to remember my own SSN, why would I want to remember his? So, a unique ID would be a funneling point in the middle, that opens up to both the top and the bottom. Kind of like IP numeric addresses are (or should be), where the number should not really matter, but can be mapped to something on the link/physical level (e.g., Ethernet MAC), and is being utilized (also for mapping purposes) by higher level applications. Really, when was the last time you sent email to vixie!vixiehome(a)128.129.130.131? You know, you can reach him there, didn't you? May mean you have to give machines social security numbers as well, as you may have to address more generic resources (humans are just one instantiation) before too long. If such a system were in place, one could consider that there is really no need for such a thing as a COMPANY.COM. In reality one could send structured requests to some DB server, similar to what X.500 attempted, but perhaps a little more arbitrary/dynamic/hierarchical/whatever. Like, I may want to send email to the teacher of one of my children in grade x of school y, perhaps with some more attributes, may be I don't know the teacher's name, though, and somewhere there is some magic in the system that makes it all work. Or to the company of the laptop I bought a few weeks back, because the screen is busted already: I know the company name, I know what my problem is, that should be good enough to get it to the right person with the right unique ID (or group of IDs/people), and if there are any ambiguities, the translater/mapper could ask me questions (like, there may be no company with the name I gave it, but three choices of similar names; or two of identical names, but in different countries). A silly name like ABCDEF.COM is just absolutely meaningless to me, and the strict binding is going down a dangerous path. If only because people even bind it into there products and there is no way in hell they will change things later withough at least a fight (and probably umpteen thousand lawyers). That system has neither technical nor administrative scaling properties that will match the real world requirements. There is ways too much trash and leftovers in the system that nobody is cleaning up, or has the authority or guts to do so, and many figures presented could probably use a multiplication factor (which may have to include a 0 or more). Uh, and considering to cover only the 95th percentile of the companies is just asking for trouble, as viable and defensible as this may be, technically. I for one would not be suprise that if we continue current practice, 5-10 years down the road, above the 95th percentile of names could be just plain trash. Whatever system we come up with will have to account for that.

3 2

Re: to name or not name
by Hans-Werner Braun 28 Jul '95

28 Jul '95

Re your IPv6 comment: (Sorry, can't resist, but...) and if that debate would not have existed in the first place we would have probably have evolved to a working system by now.

1 0

Re: to name or not name
by Hans-Werner Braun 28 Jul '95

28 Jul '95

>Yuckk! Why put all the intelligence in the central system. Look at the What central system? Did I say central system? >Internet, dumb routers and packet switches flipping data bits all over >the place with all the intelligence in the hosts at the periphery. Paul >has a mail server at vixie.sf.ca.us that receives his mail and if he >really needed access remotely, he can just run a POP server there and >pick it up anywhere there is a net connection. Or if he cares about where >the mail lands, he can have vixie.sf.ca.us forward all his mail via UUCP >and then poll via TCP/IP or modem from wherever he happens to be located. POP servers and mail forwarders are friends of mine. I use both every single day. All I am trying to say is that I think we should decouple the complexities of the Internet system from what a user sees, while at the same time increasing the functionality. Setting up and running and whatever a POP server and such is no problem with me, but, for example, my kids prefer to just have things work, and finding what they are looking for, and them not having to worry about arbitrary complexities. Not that they would not care, but they should not *have* to.

2 1

NEW POLICY ON INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES
by Roy Engehausen 28 Jul '95

28 Jul '95

Just a lurker normally but how about using product/services as a qualifer? Examples: ibm.computers.com att.telephone.com specialized.bicycles.com cisco.networks.com? Roy

2 1

Re: NEW POLICY ON INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES
by woody＠zocalo.net 28 Jul '95

28 Jul '95

markk(a)internic.net (Mark Kosters) writes: > Edu.com, the perennial favorite, is one of these domains. > However, I would not advocate that name. Perhaps example.com or > reserved.com? I'm assuming that you and Mr. Barton are discounting the possibility of using "domain.com" since it's already registered. You are, in fact, welcome to use it in examples, since all we do with it is explain to people from whom we get mail on user(a)domain.com and user(a)host.domain.com how to reconfigure their email gateways (since that's generally what's misconfigured, that or return addresses) so that they'll work. We registered it as something between a joke and a public service. Alternatively, if you'd like to maintain some sort of purity, we can relinquish the domain back to the NIC for a good cause like this, with the caveat that you'll get a lot of mail from clueless people who want to know why you've hijacked their email. :-) -Bill Woodcock ________________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody(a)zocalo.net woody(a)applelink.apple.com user(a)host.domain.com

1 0

Re: NEW POLICY ON INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES
by Scott Bradner 28 Jul '95

28 Jul '95

> How about "postel.com he is past that, how about "postel.org" Scott

1 0

user interfaces
by Hans-Werner Braun 28 Jul '95

28 Jul '95

specific example, I want to be able to say to my computer "turn off my coffee machine" because I remember it is still on. The computer should leave me alone with all them mapping details, after all, that's what I pay it for. So, it knows who I am, so it can figure out what "my" relates to. It can figure out what coffee machines and their attributes are, and what "off" means. The right response to me would not be "give me a host name" or even (gasp!) "give me an IP address," but "do you mean the coffee machine at home or in your office?"

1 0