Well, it's a good thing we have you around to keep us honest. On September 8, 2014 at 07:37 mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta) wrote:
Barry Shein wrote:
Understand these were speaking notes and it was safe to assume the audience basically understood DNS so it wasn't my intention to give an exhaustive introduction to how DNS works.
Surprisingly many people who basically understand DNS have the same misunderstanding as you, which is why some people believe in NDN.
There also seems to be some splitting of hairs over the meaning of "site" in your response. That is, some sort of physical boundary vs an authoritative boundary.
Then, "site" based FQDN can not be used for scalable routing.
At any rate my proposal doesn't eliminate hierarchical addresses,
See above.
One could use the FQDNs themselves as hierarchical addresses at least as an external representation.
You are trying to define something not usable for scalable routing a hierarchical address, which is as bad as your attempt to distort the definition of "site".
Masataka Ohta
-- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*