> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Rose > Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] p2p, mDNS and scaling > > "Indeed, I think mDNS + dynamic DNS is the recipe for a really > interesting, > completely decentralized naming system that works seamlessly both on and > off > the internet:" > > Dynamic DNS still requires all the DNS infrastructure because whoever > you are using for your dynamic DNS service has to be registered with > the regular DNS system, otherwise you have a bootstrap problem. In > effect all it does is shift your dependency onto a single node in the > DNS tree so you can quickly update your IP rather than having to wait > for the typical DNS record propagation delay.
I agree; I'm merely saying that DNS + mDNS provides an effective name resolution system that works both on and off the internet. Assuming you wrote an application that: 1) Always registered its latest IP using dynamic DNS 2) Responded to mDNS queries 3) Tries to resolve DNSNAME and DNSNAME.local in parallel Then it'd always find peers whether they're across the internet or an ad hoc wifi network in the middle of the desert. (This is primarily targeted to IM/VoIP environments where you're searching for a specific peer, rather than for any peer hosting a piece of content.) Which leads me to... > "Anyway, the more I learn about DNS, the more I like it. It's one of the > few > systems that is truly decentralized at not only a technical infrastructure > level, but also the legal/political level." > > Uh, you sure about that? DNS is extremely centralized both > technically and politically. ICANN [3] is responsible for managing > the whole thing, and it is a hierarchical system that relies very much > on the root name servers and the name servers for the top level > domains (TLDs). Records are mirrored all over the place, but this is > definitely a centralized architecture. Well, in a technical sense *all* internet applications are centralized because they depend upon the IP namespace, which is centrally managed. But I mean decentralized in comparison to other "single-vendor" namespace providers. For example, I can't take my Skype name and move it to a different back end provider -- Skype has that namespace locked up. Same goes for all the IM services. But if I don't like the back-end service for my DNS name, there's a well-oiled process for transferring it to another. Likewise, Skype (for example) could conceivably decide to just take my name and give it to somebody else, and I'd have no real legal recourse. I don't think I have any legal rights to that name. But I do have some court-tested legal protections around my DNS name. Anyway, it's not a replacement for a DHT for content indexing. Rather, it's a way to avoid needing a DHT for name indexing. -david _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
