At 12:05 AM 7/24/99 +0000, you wrote:
Again getting outside of the envelope, can people remember ten
character words that include &#$lk=jnp-jl] and so on? Not to confound
the routing problem (as I understand it), you all can tell me why it
would not be possible that each such ten bit word, which for the want of
a better term I will call a net address, would map directly onto an IPv6 IP,
and if everyone in the world talks to everyone else in this grand new
internet then there is no need for the allocation chore. My rough
calculation
says that there are 1.3*10^17 such addresses in IPv6 space, and if I want
one that's not taken I register it. Is that a viable way of doing it?
(I would await input on my math from others before buying too much of this.)
Bill Lovell
>
>
>> Existing and future registrars, registries, ISPs,
>> etc., could well collaborate in hiring some service company that DOES
>> WHAT IT IS TOLD AND DOES NOT MAKE UP ITS OWN RULES TO
>> FATTEN ITS BOTTOM LINE to handle root servers, domain name
>> lookup, etc. ...
>
>How far along are they, by now?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>Rob contributed,
>
>> > someone
>> > was posing the case in which an attorney wanted "something.law,"
>> > but the folks owning .law charge too much, are incompetent, etc.
>>
>> This problem vanishes if we demand an administrative
>> infrastructure that explicitly supports registrars providing
>> customer service to registrants, irrespective of TLD. In other
>> words, I want to register in *.foo? I go to ANY registrar, or the
>> one with which I have a strong previous relationship, or have heard
>> good things about, etc. This is what competition is all about.
>
>At first I didnt see how 'demand' fit into Bills hypothetical situation --
> but the change of perpective helps find an answer for my question
>to him. Its obviously not enough to see the rational solution to a
>problem (especially a problem of standardization!); one has to think
>of what those registrars, ISPs etc would want out of a 'standards
>organization' -- and the obvious answer is that a good many of
>them (think they) want exclusive control over a corner of the names
>market. As long as this perspective prevails, so that 'multiple
>registries' equates to 'exclusive access to certain sub-registries' I
>dont see the hypothetical becoming acceptable to the powers that
>be. (Sure, one can 're-register' in .per or .firm - and as far as the
>DoC etc are concerned, thats fine, it can stay that way, and the
>enduser can gnash his teeth.)
>
>To get the problem to 'vanish,' then, *from the end-users p.o.v*, the
>'demand' will have to have some teeth in it -- some incentive to
>overcome the 'natural' monopolistic tendency -- but Im as in the
>dark as anyone as to what those teeth would be. At present we
>cant even say, 'Im not gonna register with you unless you resolve
>Joes TLD' much less, 'unless you *all get together and resolve
>each others TLDs.'
>
>Arguably, a grassroots renunciation or boycott of domain names
>would be effective -- who needs em if we can use IP numbers? --
>but mobilizing that would be fairly incredible....
>
>But wait, what about a screensaver, that uses spare CPU cycles to
>*look up* IP#s for all DNs it finds on your system, and presents
>you with a handy popup 'numbdressbook' -- or better, rewrites the
>location slot when you enter the name in your browser? That is, its
>your very own name resolver *for the names you use* (who gives a
>fig about names you dont use?), and as net congestion grows, the
>economy of going 'by the numbers' will start to be noticeable (and
>could be noticed, any time one wishes to do it with names, so its a
>risk-free offer).
>
>The registrars that want to keep their business afloat will suddenly
>find it in their self-interest to collaborate a little bit, I predict...
>
>So how far along are they? Lets say it takes 3 months to get the
>local resolver together (Jeff, hows your VC fund?) - I'd say we could
>look forward to a International Consortium of Agreeable Nicks and
>Notations by New Years, dont you? *And they'll distribute the
>resolver as a freebie to DN registrants!
>
>=========
>
> J Weinberg succinctly states the *entire* rationale for names:
>"IP addresses... are opaque and hard to remember. It would not be
>practical for a user to have to remember, and type in, a different IP
>address for every Web site he sought to visit or electronic mail
>message he wished to send. ... The domain name system (DNS)
>makes it easier for ordinary people to use the Internet."
>
>All this squabbling over a way to save a body having to *remember,
>and type in*!
>
>kerry.ker
>
