>
> b) I don't think any registrar will tell you, "No, people should stop
> registering domains because the DNS infrastructure won't handle it." :-)
yeah, I know the registrars are happy to take your money. I was thinking of
the actual core machines.
> Kind of. This is along the same lines as domain search paths. If I type
> "http://www" into my browser, the DNS resolver will return the address for
> www.litech.org even though I clearly did not type "litech.org" in the
> address. It might even return the address for www.litech.internal, even
> if what I expected was www.litech.org.
Heh, I didn't know about this. I just tried it (from home), and sure enough
got the home page of my ISP! So what happened? Did my browser "complete"
the URL for me, or did DNS do it?
me type http://www ---> browser expands to gethostbyname(www.myisp.com), DNS
do query(www.myisp.com), or
me type "http://www" ---> browser do "gethostbyname(www)", DNS expands to
query(www.myisp.com)
I would guess the former, but nothing will surprise me these days...are DNS
clients "intelligently" expanding DNS queries for us now?
> I'm a bit unclear on what you mean by "two-faced" DNS then. I'm assuming
> that you mean that queryes for addresses inside the company.foo domain
> would be answered differently depending on the IP address of the queryer.
>
> My proposal would achieve exactly this, by having all clients inside the
I basically meant this. (I'm not quite clear as to whether internal dns
servers actually pay attention to the IP address of the queryer, or rather
if they just assume that if they got a query, it must have come from inside
since the firewall prevents them from coming from outside. I would have
assumed the latter.
>From what I know so far, I believe it may be possible for a site to use
GULRs today without any changes to any existing implementations, as long as
they use two-faced DNS. The ability to do this is very attractive for
obvious reasons. It is probably mainly for that reason that I'm disinclined
towards the part of your idea that requires change to the DNS client.
The part of your scheme that uses site-ipv6.net simply for the purpose of
helping guarantee uniqueness, however, is very nice. I don't think everyone
would want to use it (rather they would just be lazy and flip the coins but
not register), but those that do would at least have some legitimate legal
claim to the number, should the issue arrise in the future.
Another attractive part of this aspect of your scheme is that it would put
pressure on ICANN to create a true registry for the GULR identifiers. The
pressure would come from people that are outraged at having to pay for a
domain name that they don't in fact intend to use as a domain name. So at
some point the site-IPv6.net's would be grandfathered into a "true"
registry.
PF
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
