Why not to restrict first-level domains to companies which can demonstrate that they have 1000+ hosts? Companies with 200+ hosts then should use .A.COM -- .Z.COM (i know, some of them are taken, but that can be fixed). Smaller companies should use .xx.COM (and xx is NOT choosen by the companies -- it is just the random seed and/or registry ID). What we should worry about is number of first-level domains/number of hosts ratio. It is the same problem as with routing. The solution is also the same -- aggregation, with subsequent Toxic Waste Dump (aka legacy allocation) cleanup. That kind of defeats the "menmonic" value of names but still beats telephone numbers (and then, what kind of mnemonic can be used to distinguish between thousands of nearly identical small businesses?) --vadim PS. Obviously if IBM registers 100 domain names it is still a lot less damage than a small ISP (with 1000 dial-up customers) which registers a domain name for every such customer. Big folks registering POISONOUS-BURGER.COM and SHIT-ON-TV.COM aren't really a problem. Zillion of MOM-AND-POP.COMs is.
Why not to restrict first-level domains to companies which can demonstrate that they have 1000+ hosts?
I have an idea :-) Why not create more top level domains to reduce the congestion in .com? Then let other companies run some of them so a free market can decide what policies they like best.
Companies with 200+ hosts then should use .A.COM -- .Z.COM (i know, some of them are taken, but that can be fixed).
Vadim asks:
Why not to restrict first-level domains to companies which can demonstrate that they have 1000+ hosts?
Creating a problem to solve a problem is not a solution. Paul already said that a 16MB 486 can handle root DNS just fine. This does not bespeak of a problem requiring "renumbering" hundreds of thousands of domains. FURTHER, your "big win" is only a 1/26 lessening of load. If the problem is such that 1/26 is a "big win" I think it's not big enough to rename the Internet for. ...
What we should worry about is number of first-level domains/number of hosts ratio. It is the same problem as with routing. The solution is also the same --
No, it's not the same problem as routing. All routers with non-default rules need to know about all routes. The only possible analogy for that in DNS is root nameservers. These (as Paul pointed out in a previous post, since he runs F) are not saturated, and don't require that many resources. If you feel the growth of domain names is such that it will outstrip a 486 w/16MB soon, tell me when it will be a SIGNIFICANT problem. I.e. when will it outstrip a real machine (Sun, VAX, Alpha, SGI) with real memory (64MB? 128MB? 4G?) Remember, upgrading HUNDREDS of routers all running 45Mbps is a priority. Upgrading 8 boxes running BIND and doing it well is a much much much lower priority.
mnemonic can be used to distinguish between thousands of nearly identical small businesses?)
--vadim
PS. Obviously if IBM registers 100 domain names it is still a lot less damage than a small ISP (with 1000 dial-up customers) which registers a domain name for every such customer. Big folks registering POISONOUS-BURGER.COM and SHIT-ON-TV.COM aren't really a problem. Zillion of MOM-AND-POP.COMs is.
Ehud
Why not to restrict first-level domains to companies which can demonstrate that they have 1000+ hosts?
Creating a problem to solve a problem is not a solution. Paul already said that a 16MB 486 can handle root DNS just fine.
I have said that a 16MB 486 can handle "." just fine. To handle everything in COM, EDU, et al, takes about 100MB just for named. And it'll soon double again, so we're "working the issue." Here's today's "top" display on f.root-servers.net: Memory: Real: 96M/103M Virt: 100M/176M Free: 7616K PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME WCPU CPU COMMAND 26822 root 2 0 95M 95M sleep 23.0H 12.65% 12.65% named
If you feel the growth of domain names is such that it will outstrip a 486 w/16MB soon, tell me when it will be a SIGNIFICANT problem. I.e. when will it outstrip a real machine (Sun, VAX, Alpha, SGI) with real memory (64MB? 128MB? 4G?)
I think Vadim's point was that if we can require folks to show utilization before we will give them their own non-provider-based CIDR block, why can't we require them to show utilization before they are allowed to have a second level domain? The answers aren't fun but they're real: CIDR was forced by address economics; if the routing table could handle hundreds of thousands (soon to be millions) of little prefixes, and address space were unlimited and effectively free, we could never have implemented CIDR. The DNS economics are very different. One of my clients registered SIKHISM.COM and asked me if I would guest-serve the WWW.SIKHISM.COM page. This being a religious organization, I refused, and demanded that he first purge the erroneous domain and register SIKHISM.ORG instead, which he did, and so I am now serving it. I wish the average ISP would be as insistent on proper names.
On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, Vadim Antonov wrote:
customer. Big folks registering POISONOUS-BURGER.COM and SHIT-ON-TV.COM aren't really a problem. Zillion of MOM-AND-POP.COMs is.
Hurry folks, all three of those domains are still available! Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
participants (5)
-
avg＠postman.ncube.com -
Ehud Gavron -
jon＠branch.com -
Michael Dillon -
Paul A Vixie