- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: US Domain -- County Delegations
by Sean Doran 28 Jul '95

28 Jul '95

>[Delaware (DE), a state in the USA] >And think of all the traffic that will cross the pond because >people forget the ".US"! E3 anyone? Sean.

2 1

Re: US Domain -- County Delegations
by Vadim Antonov 27 Jul '95

27 Jul '95

> >Or, even better, for major metropolitan areas like SF, LA, NYC, > >CHI etc the name central city can be used instead of state. Michael Dillon wrote: >This would seem to indicate that geographical domains are a bad idea and >that domain names should be based on some characteristic that is less >likely to change over time. The geographical position (modulo state/metro area) of an organization or an individual _is_ the most stable characteristic, on average. Moving long-distance is hard and few people or companies do that more than two times in their life. What i was talking about is that using state names does not provide sufficient granularity. It makes sense to use "locales" instead of historical administrative domains. I.e. a person living in Kansas City will likely to think of it as of a single city, not something between Missouri and Kansas. And, anyway, the goal is to make hierarchy deeper, without making it hard to use. <city>.<state>.us is too long to type. <state>.us is not enough; so here goes my proposal of "extended states". --vadim

1 0

NANOG Meeting Info
by Pam Ciesla 27 Jul '95

27 Jul '95

NANOG Meeting September 11 & 12, 1995, Pittsburgh, PA Hotel: Holiday Inn (rooms blocked until 8/25) $78.00 + 12% tax At University Ctr. 100 Lytton Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15213 412-682-6200 phone Please mention NANOG when you make reservations. Airport: Pittsburgh International Airport Meeting Location: Pittsburgh Supercomputing Ctr. in the Mellon Institute Bldg. 4400 Fifth Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15213 412-268-4960 main number More info to follow later. Pam Ciesla

1 0

Re: US Domain -- County Delegations
by Phil Dykstra 27 Jul '95

27 Jul '95

Least we keep repeating "25,000,000 mid-to-large-sized businesses in the United States", which as someone pointed out would be ~10 persons per business, I offer some counter numbers. Over 95% of all corporate wealth/capitalization in the United States is contained in the largest 5000 businesses. A good deal of that is contained in the top 500. I believe that it is in everyone's interest, and not a technological burden, to support these few thousand companies in a top level .com domain. Just because there may be millions of tiny home businesses does not mean that e.g. IBM should end up several levels deep in the tree. Look at the number of people that will access IBM vs. my home business. Think of having to traverse potentially backwater DNS servers to access multi-billion dollar companies? Of course deciding who's in or out is where the difficulty lies, but the technology doesn't demand uniform inconvenience for us all. - Phil

1 0

Re: US Domain -- County Delegations
by nordlund＠databank.com 27 Jul '95

27 Jul '95

>It appears to me that we are making some rather weird assumptions here, >based on history in other environments (like current domain names, phone >numbers, USMail addresses, and so). It is not so clear to me that there will >always be a one-to-one mapping between the destination one wants to reach, >and some name like vixie.sf.ca.us. Eventually such strict bindings will hurt >us even more than they do today. What do you really want? Well, I want to >email Joe Smith? No way, there are too many of those, give me more >information? So, eventually may be we have to deal with more levels of >indirection and some data base support that allows us to zoom in, and, like >it or not, perhaps introduce some margin of error ("sorry, wrong number, >find another Vixie") Hmmm. Like X.400/500?? state=XX, country=US, surname=Jones, Givenname=Pete city=YY, neighborhood=sunnyside, street=rockfence etc. etc. > >I think in our discussions we have ways too much a historical Internet >perspective >with strict bindings in mind, and names and addresses that are supposed to >last for lfetimes. This will not work. Ther are too many people, too many >companies, too many mapping strategies out there. Whether I email to "Vixie, >the bind dude," or "Vixie, the networking person living in Northern >California," may be there should be algorithms and facilities in place that >map those to the same person. Perhaps even in ways the information (such as >email) follows him, rather than him having to chase after his email (e.g., >remap his "current" location when/after he moves). > >What names or addresses things eventually map to should be fairly irrelevant >in terms of perceived complexity, as you'd alias Joe Smith@whereever to some >short version in your personal alias/nickname file anyway. Or is that just >mapping information for a data base supported translation server? > Dave Nordlund Dir of Technical Svcs Databank, Inc 913/842-6699 1473 Hwy 40 nordlund(a)databank.com Lawrence, KS 66044 "Your Key to the Internet

1 0

Re: US Domain -- County Delegations
by nordlund＠databank.com 27 Jul '95

27 Jul '95

>On Wed, 26 Jul 1995, Paul A Vixie wrote: > >> >Or, even better, for major metropolitan areas like SF, LA, NYC, >> >CHI etc the name central city can be used instead of state. >> >> I like this idea. (Note that VIXIE.SF.CA.US has moved many times since its >> creation, and though I've always been in the Bay Area I've not lived in San >> Francisco since 1988.) > >This would seem to indicate that geographical domains are a bad idea and >that domain names should be based on some characteristic that is less >likely to change over time. > >VIXIE.BIND.HACKER ? > >Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 >Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-542-4130 >http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael(a)memra.com > How much do we want to use the .US domain? For heavy use, we need a style for organizations that are beyond cities, countys or even states. I support a style that will be organization.US or maybe organization.COM.US (of all things). Dave Nordlund Dir of Technical Svcs Databank, Inc 913/842-6699 1473 Hwy 40 nordlund(a)databank.com Lawrence, KS 66044 "Your Key to the Internet"

1 0

Re: US Domain -- County Delegations
by Barney Wolff 27 Jul '95

27 Jul '95

>Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 07:48:42 -0700 >From: Paul A Vixie <paul(a)vix.com> > >> The whole point of a name space is to make things easier to remember. > >This is the old invariant. It's varied. I'm still waiting for a proposal >for a hierarchy which will hold 25,000,000 names and still have them all >easy to remember, or easy to guess from external knowledge. > >The new "whole point of" the DNS name space is to provide names which change >less often than IP addresses change. If we could do just that we'd be winning. I'd like to question that 25e6 figure. It's one "mid-to-large" (to quote you) company in the US for every 10 inhabitants. Really? Is it perhaps a world figure instead? If we want a hash that's easy to compute from the company name, use the first three characters of the name, not something which requires external knowledge. It certainly does not solve the name-conflict problem, but it does provide sufficient division of the namespace to make the load on any one branch bearable, both for name service and for registration. Barney Wolff <barney(a)databus.com>

1 0

Re: US Domain -- County Delegations
by Hans-Werner Braun 27 Jul '95

27 Jul '95

It appears to me that we are making some rather weird assumptions here, based on history in other environments (like current domain names, phone numbers, USMail addresses, and so). It is not so clear to me that there will always be a one-to-one mapping between the destination one wants to reach, and some name like vixie.sf.ca.us. Eventually such strict bindings will hurt us even more than they do today. What do you really want? Well, I want to email Joe Smith? No way, there are too many of those, give me more information? So, eventually may be we have to deal with more levels of indirection and some data base support that allows us to zoom in, and, like it or not, perhaps introduce some margin of error ("sorry, wrong number, find another Vixie"). I think in our discussions we have ways too much a historical Internet perspective with strict bindings in mind, and names and addresses that are supposed to last for lfetimes. This will not work. Ther are too many people, too many companies, too many mapping strategies out there. Whether I email to "Vixie, the bind dude," or "Vixie, the networking person living in Northern California," may be there should be algorithms and facilities in place that map those to the same person. Perhaps even in ways the information (such as email) follows him, rather than him having to chase after his email (e.g., remap his "current" location when/after he moves). What names or addresses things eventually map to should be fairly irrelevant in terms of perceived complexity, as you'd alias Joe Smith@whereever to some short version in your personal alias/nickname file anyway. Or is that just mapping information for a data base supported translation server?

3 2

Re: US Domain -- County Delegations
by postel＠ISI.EDU 27 Jul '95

27 Jul '95

Hi. For every idea you have for structured names in the US domain, please consider how many names there will be in each component of the structure, and then consider how your would maintain a zone file of that size. Be realistic about how many companies, organizations, and individuals there are in the US. Assume they will all want domain names. --jon.

1 0

Re: US Domain -- County Delegations
by Scott Bradner 26 Jul '95

26 Jul '95

> Each state Department of Motor Vehicles maintains a two or three character representation of the county names for display on driver's licenses. there is also a 5 digit FIPS code for each county and I am working with a group that may want to support servers for it. Scott

1 0