But there's no technical advantage of a hierarchical system over a simple hashing scheme, they're basically isomorphic other than a hash system can more easily be tuned to a particular distribution goal.
Amazing how many experienced people seem to be saying this isn't
given there are already schemes out there using flat namespaces for large problems (e.g. Skype, freenet, various file sharing systems). Most of
possible, these
are also far more dynamic than the DNS in nature, and most have no management overhead with them, you run the software and the namespace "just works".
However I think the pain in DNS for most people is the hierarchy, but
diverse registration systems. i.e. It isn't that it is delegated, it is
According to your description, this is a hierarchical naming system. At the top level you have Skype, freenet, etc. defining separate namespaces. Because DNS was intended to be a universal naming system, it had to incorporate the hierarchy into the system. the that
delegates all "do their own thing".
Seems to me that this is part of the definition of "delegate". Some would say that this makes for a more robust system than a monolithic hierarchy where everyone has to toe the party line.
I've always pondered doing a flat, simple part of the DNS, or even an overlay, but of course it needs a business model of sorts.
It has been tried at least twice and failed. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05/13/realnames_goes_titsup_com/ http://www.idcommons.net --Michael Dillon