Bill you don't seem very familiar with the current dns. If they setup a
tld that is not in conflict they will be listed in the alternate roots and
they will resolve globally out side the USG namespace.
Joe Baptista
http://www.dot.god/
dot.GOD Hostmaster
+1 (805) 753-8697
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Bill Stewart wrote:
> At 07:01 PM 8/12/00 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> >I believe one of the consequences of increased commercial and governmental
> >regulation of the 'Internet' will be the rise of private neighborhoods or
> >communities of users sharing name and resource space that isn't available
> >globaly.
>
> There's no point in using a neighborhood name space that's
> not available globally for a resource that _is_ connected globally -
> you just hang your space as a 3LD or 4LD or 5LD under the existing DNS,
> like julie.jimsfriends.ssz.com or julie.myfriends.billstewart.my-ip.net,
> where my-ip.net is one of the free DNS services.
> The purpose for having TLD space that's not part of the main DNS system
> is so you can have cool-looking domain names (4LDs aren't as cool),
> which isn't necessary for neighborhood name spaces.
>
> The question of what name space to use for a non-global IP is more complex -
> you may have a firewall or virtual private network running 10.x addresses.
> You can still use a FakeTLD or 3LD or 4LD for your names, but the machines
> will only be accessible from the outside world if you're using proxies
> (I'm counting MX servers at your firewall as proxies - but why use emails
> like
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of [EMAIL PROTECTED]?)
> The place it gets messy is when you want URLs that look the same from
> inside and outside the firewall, like www.research.att.com.
> One approach is to have the firewall differentiate between
> externals like www.research.att.com and internals like printer.sanfran.att.com
> and fetch the material from outside when an insider wants it.
> Another is to use a master copy inside and copy updates to the outside
> version,
> so insiders are seeing a server in 10.x space and outsiders see public IP.
>
> >We also need a public store and forward network for sending e-mail and
> >low-bandwidth traffic up and down the interstates using CB radio's and
> >1200 baud packet modems. Why wait around for the gov to come up with some
> >commercial only solution?
>
> The problem is that the government regulates the spectrum to protect the
> interests of big business\\\\\\\\\\\\ the public, so there are limits
> on what technology is available for data. Amateur Packet Radio
> had done the technology development, but of course you need licenses,
> and enough amateurs _Believe_ in that sort of thing that unlicensed users or
> encrypted traffic will get hunted down. CB radio probably bans data,
> not that anybody's cared about the rules on CB radio for decades,
> but the radio problems are tougher because of interference from
> some yahoo in Florida with a 100-horsepower linear amplifier on his truck
> (that's 74600 watts....) and long-distance propagation at those low
> frequencies.
>
> There is unlicensed spectrum in 900MHz and 2.4GHz bands, and companies like
> Metricom / Ricochet do make equipment and services that use them.
> You tend to need a high concentration of users to make that practical;
> there's commercial service in the Bay Area and a few other cities and
> airports,
> and people have done private MosquitoNets, primarily around Stanford.
>
> Of course there _is_ still UUCP and FidoNet technology - the first email link
> into Tonga was UUCP. Fidonet tends to have restrictions on sending
> encrypted data,
> partly because they wanted to deal with the billing problems since it ran on
> unsubsidized telephone calls, so your email message might cost the net
> hundreds if not thousands of dollars if it went internationally instead of
> within US local calling areas. Anything using dialup modems is of course
> traceable, but the remaining parts of uucpnet and fidonet may still have
> Obscurity value.
>
> Fidonet names didn't have ego-conflict problems - nobody much cares about
> the commercial/uniqueness value of being Node123 in Zone 4,
> and the addresses mapped into DNS as something like n123.z4.fido.net.
> UUCP names inherently had conflicts, but it was a mostly local namespace,
> so you could and did have 20 machines named mozart and 17 named bilbo,
> and the conflicts that mattered were who got to use the name at the
> popular hub machines like ihnp4, allegra, and uunet,
> though ihnp4!mozart! might point to a different machine than uunet!mozart!
> and it was OK. The .uucp DNS namespace was a real hack; I think it
> was resolved by connectivity to uunet, but I'm not sure that was consistent.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
> Bill
> Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
>
