Re: Domain names for ISP infrastructure links
That may sound silly, but there's a merit in the idea that domain names can successfully replace the SNMP's object IDs. SNMP and DNS then become the same protocol.
Cool. I can now dream of a day when nslookup for a router returns something lovely like:
1.3.6.1.2.1.11
-dorian ;)
Nah, that's when your network monitor sends query for an integer number RR to in-bytes.0.0.ethernet.interface.cisco0.san-jose.halter.net and when you type "mail postmaster@halter.net" you generate request to postmaster.mail.halter.net when you do "netscape http://halter.net/funpages-dir/funpage.html" then mozilla version 100219382973.117 retrieves html.funpage.funpages-dir.http.halter.net and when you do "cat //rodan.halter.net/mnt1/ftp/pub/junk/README" some global NFS opens file at README.junk.pub.ftp.mnt1.nfs.rodan.halter.net and when your command is "telnet rodan.halter.net" the DNS will get to login.rodan.halter.net. Note that all names are constructed using the simple rule: <application-specific part>.<service name>.<host name>.<domain> --vadim
All this discussion is fun, but what about: 1. Bind implementation enforcing character set restrictions should be observed by system configurators. 2. DNS delegations are just that. Businesses name entities within their naming context in a manner that suits their business purpose. Within their own context (and the RFCs) a business sets its own naming rules. Note that this does not rule out being cooperative and sensitive to the needs of others. But that is the prerogative of the owner of the delegated naming context. That is the essence of "delegation" in DNS. - James R. Cutler EDS Mail Stop 4165 800 Tower Drive, Troy, MI 48007-7012 Phone: 810-265-7514 FAX: 810-265-7514 EDS Internal Web: <http://www.iscg.eds.com/cutler/> World Wide Web: <http://www.ltu.edu/dechtm/cutler/cutler.htm>
James R. Cutler writes:
All this discussion is fun, but what about:
1. Bind implementation enforcing character set restrictions should be observed by system configurators.
Isn't a resolver library purposefully junking not exactly correctly formed domain names in a direct contradiction with the paragraph 1.2.2 of RFC-1123 a.k.a. STD-0003?
2. DNS delegations are just that. Businesses name entities within their naming context in a manner that suits their business purpose. Within their own context (and the RFCs) a business sets its own naming rules.
Note that this does not rule out being cooperative and sensitive to the needs of others. But that is the prerogative of the owner of the delegated naming context. That is the essence of "delegation" in DNS.
Exactly.
James R. Cutler
Dima
1. Bind implementation enforcing character set restrictions should be observed by system configurators.
Pecularities of any particular implementation of a protocol should be irrelevant. We should read the RFCs. randy
1. Bind implementation enforcing character set restrictions should be observed by system configurators.
Pecularities of any particular implementation of a protocol should be irrelevant. We should read the RFCs.
We intend that there be no difference between the effect of following either of above recommendations.
1. Bind implementation enforcing character set restrictions should be observed by system configurators. Pecularities of any particular implementation of a protocol should be irrelevant. We should read the RFCs. We intend that there be no difference between the effect of following either of above recommendations.
And that is well and proper from an implementor's view. But a natural and unavoidable difference between specification and implementation will remain. When looking for definition one should look at the RFC, not at code in some aribtrary language which runs on some arbitrary set of machines. When looking for clues on how one might hack it, the inverse is true. Both have their uses. randy
participants (5)
-
dvv＠sprint.net -
James R. Cutler -
Paul A Vixie -
randy＠psg.com -
Vadim Antonov