Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, Dave Howe wrote: > I believe I mentioned geographic routing (which is actually > switching, and not routing) so your packets get delivered, as the > crow flies. The question of name services. How often do you actually > use a domain name as an end user? Not very often. People typically > use a search engine. It doesn't matter how the URI looks like, as > long as it can be clicked on, or is short enough to be cut and > pasted, or written down on a piece of paper and entered manually, in > a pinch. ah. Sorry, I don't think of dns as a name service (apart from once removed) - we are talking DHCP or similar routable-address assignment.
>> under ipv6 you can avoid having to have a explicit naming service - >> the > You obviously understand under naming service something other than > DNS. yup - I recognise anything as a naming service that allows you to associate a routable name with a node that otherwise has only a mac address; > Anything which relies on global routing tables and their refresh will > always has an issue. Which is why geographical local-knowledge routing > will dominate global networks. Indeed so - but of course the current internet *does* work that way, so any new solution that advertises itself as "Free Internet access" *must* fit into the current scheme or it is worthless. > The best solution would seem to leave the multilingual node the > choice of means of delivery. It would be completely transparent to > the packet. Unfortunately, such abstraction fails unless the *sender* knows how to push the packet in the right direction, and each hop knows how to get it a little nearer; this more or less requires that each node be given a unique identifier compatable with the existing system, and given the existing system is still ipv4, there are problems.
