Lican Huang (huang_lican) writes:
>
>        One problem is how to implement the DNS with huge amount
>    domain names.

        Define huge -- it's already pretty huge today.

>    I don't think today's DNS implementation can handle
>    successively with huge amount domain names in the future.

        Why ?

>       Another question is when there are so huge amount domain
>    names in the future, why we don't give these domain names
>    semantic meaning? Can you figure out what's the meaning about
>    "www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com " from bilions of domain names?

        DNS is a labelling mechanism, as has been pointed out before.
        I don't think people care about assigning meaning to
        "www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com".

>    You
>    may say we can use SEARCH by the key words and get the link of
>    www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com. But, in this way, domain names are useless
>    , because we can totally use IP address or any other handle to
>    represent www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com.

        And we don't because the idea was to have a labelling mechanism
        that was distinct from the addressing mechanisme.  Nothing more.

>     You may say we use domain names
>    as stable name because Ip address may be changed. But , why use
>    these ugly domain names? Why not semantic domain names?

        Because it's not DNS anymore ?

>        How to name semantic domain names? We can let specific virtual
>    organizations ( or registrar comanies ) to do. That is, ICANN
>    controls top level domains. Lower level domain names is controlled
>    by virtual organizations ( or registrar comanies) according to
>    the clasification of contents. In this way, we can figure out
>    hieararchical classification of contents very easily by trace down
>    the heararchical domain names.

        But it's not the same protocol and architecture is it ?

>        Semantic domain names does not takeover the current domain
>    names in the first stage. We can use new TLDs to manage semantic
>    domain names, and let the old TLDs to be managed as the way today.

        The second part may be interesting, but I still fail to see how
        the existing DNS architecture will not be adequate for IPv6.

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to