Re: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
Lloyd Wood writes: Telephone numbers are not equivalent to IP addresses (although you say they are), and it's a long time since actual telephone numbers have been used for hierarchical routing. They are more similar than different, certainly enough so for the purposes of the vulgarization I provide. No other commonplace technology seems to provide so appropriate an analogy. I don't remember mentioning hierarchical routing in my vulgarization. You can't have efficient address-based routing and efficient (sequential) assignment of the same addresses in the same space without severely constraining the growth of your network - and the telephone network does not. Sure you can, with variable address spaces, and the telephone network does just that.
Re: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
It doesn't really matter, since, for the average user, there is only one TLD, and that is COM. The whole concept of a TLD is an anachronism that does not apply to the interests of multinational businesses and organizations. It should be made invisible to users who don't wish to specify it explicitly. I have long advocated a system that uses multiple hidden TLDs that are hashed from the second-level domain name, but nobody seems interested. For example, you can take the first and last alphanumeric characters of a second-level domain name, put x in front, and create a hashed TLD which you automatically append to the name, so that the user doesn't have to enter it, for example: ibm entered in a browser generates web.ibm.xim disneyland entered in a browser generates web.disneyland.xdd coca-cola entered in a browser generates web.coca-cola.xca and so on. This randomly distributes second-level domains over 1296 implicit TLDs, and since a given name can hash to only one TLD, the TLD can be computed from the name, and so the user need only enter the second-level name. The web. on the front just provides a distinct hostname for the Web server for the convenience of the domain owner. By doing this all the TLDs are eliminated (except for those who still wish to type a TLD explicitly--obviously .COM et al. will be around for some time to come), and you don't have this nonsense about a hundred different companies trying to come up with hundreds of different TLDs. Nobody is ever going to visit domains with names like .shop, anyway, so it doesn't matter who actually owns domains in those TLDs. The current arrangement of TLDs is like requiring every company in the U.S. to append the abbreviation of its home state to its name: IBM-NY, Coca-Cola-GA, Adobe-CA, Microsoft-WA, and so on. It's a technical requirement that has no utility from a mnemonic or business standpoint. By using implicit, hashed TLDs, you can eliminate the need to specify a TLD explicitly, and you can distribute the second-level domains evenly over a large number of TLDs without any fear of duplication or any need to register any name for more than one TLD (namely, the TLD to which it hashes). The glaring error being made by everyone right now is in the assumption that more explicit TLDs are the answer. In fact, they just add to the problem, by making a bad design worse. TLDs are for the computer and the occasional specialist to type in explicitly; for everyday use for businesses and the like, the TLD should be inferred by the computer from the second-level name. - Original Message - From: Jim Fleming [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ietf@ietf. org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 01:06 Subject: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel http://biz.yahoo.com/st/010705/27694.html Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel By James Ledbetter - European Executive Editor Proof of Concept TLD Development...and Multiple TLD Clusters http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html Multiple TLD Clusters are new. There is merit in having redundancy. Unfortunately, consumers will have to learn through their registrar or registry, that they would be prudent to register in BOTH TLD Cluster for the most reliable, stable service, with the widest reach. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12574.html RFC-2001-07-01-000 IPv8 Expansion of Proof of Concept TLD Development Jim Fleming http://www.DOT-Arizona.com http://www.DOT.Arizona
RE: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
I'm trying to avoid not to dwell into the details, but it looks as if you are not aware of the fact that there are several countries connected to the Internet. Several (often unrelated) companies/organizations with the same name operate in these countries and even within one country. In fact, the same company names are used even within the same city, provided that their businesses are unrelated and thus would not have been confused in the pre-Internet era. As a result, additional levels of distinction are needed to properly identify the target, nothwithstanding the fact that several company names have been reserved as domain names (I'd say stolen) by unrelated third parties trying to make a quick buck. Also, when you say: Nobody is ever going to visit domains with names like .shop, anyway, you seem to forget the info dissemination needs of the whole SME marketplace. Another point: I cannot register kolehmainen.fi as my domain name, since that would be grossly unfair to all the other individuals with the same surname in Finland, which I find quite acceptable. I could have tried to register kolehmainen.com and would have succeeded, had I done it early enough. Erkki I. Kolehmainen TIEKE Tietoyhteiskunnan kehittämiskeskus ry TIEKE Finnish Information Society Development Centre Salomonkatu 17 A 10, FIN-00100 HELSINKI, FINLAND Tel: +358 9 4763 0301, Fax: +358 9 4763 0399 http://www.tieke.fi [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 9:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel It doesn't really matter, since, for the average user, there is only one TLD, and that is COM. The whole concept of a TLD is an anachronism that does not apply to the interests of multinational businesses and organizations. It should be made invisible to users who don't wish to specify it explicitly. I have long advocated a system that uses multiple hidden TLDs that are hashed from the second-level domain name, but nobody seems interested. For example, you can take the first and last alphanumeric characters of a second-level domain name, put x in front, and create a hashed TLD which you automatically append to the name, so that the user doesn't have to enter it, for example: ibm entered in a browser generates web.ibm.xim disneyland entered in a browser generates web.disneyland.xdd coca-cola entered in a browser generates web.coca-cola.xca and so on. This randomly distributes second-level domains over 1296 implicit TLDs, and since a given name can hash to only one TLD, the TLD can be computed from the name, and so the user need only enter the second-level name. The web. on the front just provides a distinct hostname for the Web server for the convenience of the domain owner. By doing this all the TLDs are eliminated (except for those who still wish to type a TLD explicitly--obviously .COM et al. will be around for some time to come), and you don't have this nonsense about a hundred different companies trying to come up with hundreds of different TLDs. Nobody is ever going to visit domains with names like .shop, anyway, so it doesn't matter who actually owns domains in those TLDs. The current arrangement of TLDs is like requiring every company in the U.S. to append the abbreviation of its home state to its name: IBM-NY, Coca-Cola-GA, Adobe-CA, Microsoft-WA, and so on. It's a technical requirement that has no utility from a mnemonic or business standpoint. By using implicit, hashed TLDs, you can eliminate the need to specify a TLD explicitly, and you can distribute the second-level domains evenly over a large number of TLDs without any fear of duplication or any need to register any name for more than one TLD (namely, the TLD to which it hashes). The glaring error being made by everyone right now is in the assumption that more explicit TLDs are the answer. In fact, they just add to the problem, by making a bad design worse. TLDs are for the computer and the occasional specialist to type in explicitly; for everyday use for businesses and the like, the TLD should be inferred by the computer from the second-level name. - Original Message - From: Jim Fleming [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ietf@ietf. org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 01:06 Subject: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel http://biz.yahoo.com/st/010705/27694.html Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel By James Ledbetter - European Executive Editor Proof of Concept TLD Development...and Multiple TLD Clusters http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html Multiple TLD Clusters are new. There is merit in having redundancy. Unfortunately, consumers will have to learn through their registrar or registry, that they would be prudent to register in BOTH TLD Cluster for the most reliable, stable service, with the widest reach. http
Re: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
I'm aware of that, but only one machine in the world can have a given IP address, and only one machine can have a given FQDN. both assertions are false
Re: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
Randy Bush writes: both assertions are false Not terribly relevant to my original point, but: I want to be able to individually address every machine on a single worldwide network running IP. How do I do this without a unique IP address for each machine?
Re: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
Randy Bush writes: both assertions are false Not terribly relevant to my original point, but: I want to be able to individually address every machine on a single worldwide network running IP. How do I do this without a unique IP address for each machine? Nothing prevents you from assigning a unique IP address to each machine. However, this doesn't mean that every IP address in the world uniquely identifies a single machine. There are all sorts of ways IP addresses can be shared by multiple machines which you may or may not choose to use. Ned
Re: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
Ned writes: There are all sorts of ways IP addresses can be shared by multiple machines which you may or may not choose to use. Not if you are running pure IP. Either you can uniquely identify each machine, or you can't, but you cannot have it both ways.
Re: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
There are all sorts of ways IP addresses can be shared by multiple machines which you may or may not choose to use. Not if you are running pure IP. Either you can uniquely identify each machine, or you can't, but you cannot have it both ways. What about NAT? __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
Ned writes: There are all sorts of ways IP addresses can be shared by multiple machines which you may or may not choose to use. Not if you are running pure IP. Either you can uniquely identify each machine, or you can't, but you cannot have it both ways. Nor did I say you could. The point is that how IP addresses are used varies. If you want to use IP address to uniquely identify your systems you can. And someone else can use a single IP address to refer to multiple systems. As long as people are clear on what they are doing and don't assume what they do applies to others there's no conflict. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Ned
Re: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
At 01:11 PM 7/6/2001, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Ned writes: There are all sorts of ways IP addresses can be shared by multiple machines which you may or may not choose to use. Not if you are running pure IP. Either you can uniquely identify each machine, or you can't, but you cannot have it both ways. You are confused about the meaning of several statements being made. For each machine to have a unique IP address, yes each must have an IP address that no other shares. However this does not prevent machines from sharing IP addresses ALSO. d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
Re: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
Thank you so much for providing a tutorial to the community that created the technology about which you are lecturing. After 30 years of developing this stuff, I'm sure we never understood its nature nearly so well as you have now made us able. d/ At 02:48 PM 7/6/2001, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Ned writes: Nor did I say you could. The point is that how IP addresses are used varies. My point is that you want to uniquely identify every machine in the world using IP, then every machine must have a unique IP address. If you are using names instead of IP addresses, and you still want to uniquely identify every machine in the world, then every machine must have a unique name. Why is this so hard for you to understand? I understand it perfectly. What I am illustrating is how poorly people understand the real problems, how careless they are when reading, and how readily they confuse one problem with another. This is why fixed address spaces will be exhausted, no matter how large they are, and this is why TLD management will continue to be a mess, no matter what changes are made. -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
Re: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
plonk!
Re: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
At 03:30 PM 7/6/2001, Anthony Atkielski wrote: When I see what it has developed into and what some people propose that it develop into, I certainly have some serious doubts. Indeed, your contributions should warrant doubts. It makes one understand the reason the term 'adult supervision' was coined for this venue. d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
RE: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
It is nice to know that in your corner of the Internet there are clean 1:1 mappings between each machine, its name, and its IP address. That is not the case in many parts of the Internet today, and the reasons why are based on local policy, not global mandate. Even if the companies in your example wanted to get to that point they couldn't, simply because their business requirement to be constantly live means they need more than one machine mapped to a given name (never mind the load balancing issues). They typically do that through multiple addresses in DNS, or may simply NAT a single address to some 1918 space where the set of machines live. Either way there is not a clean mapping. Tony -Original Message- From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 3:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel Dave Crocker writes: For each machine to have a unique IP address, yes each must have an IP address that no other shares. Quite so. And if you use names in place of IP addresses, this means that every name must resolve to exactly one machine, worldwide--which rules out local interpretations of names. However this does not prevent machines from sharing IP addresses ALSO. If each machine has a unique address, shared addresses are irrelevant. If shared addresses are used in place of unique addresses, then the criterion of unique addressing is not satisfied.
Re: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
R. A. Hettinga wrote: The punchline in all of this to me is that the aforementioned Tower was created to *unite* language, names, if you will, not fractionate them. Well, no. Before God got his dander up over humanity's hubris (chutzpah?) in trying to build a tower that would reach heaven (Trump, Wright, et al., take note), there was purportedly only one language on Earth. But in a Reaganesque attempt to disorganize the workers, Our Oh-So-Irritable Father put an end to that, inflicting a brutal blow against standards-based communication and setting the scene for Esperanto, the Rosetta Stone, and Woody Allen's What's Up, Tiger Lily? But your point *is* well taken. To mix a metaphor like a dead horse, people seem to be grabbing the wrong end of the biblical nit, here... Dead horses mix no metaphors. No matter which end you grab. Apologies for the OT Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' - - - - - - - - - mark durham writer and editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - -
Re: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
Paul Ebersman writes: First, assuming that I (as a user of some service) must reach a particular, unique machine is a geek wish, not a requirement. Who said anything about users of a service? I want to reach my parents' machine. They are not geeks, and I am not looking for a service. Therefore I must be able to address their machine unambiguously, and this means that their machine (and mine, for that matter) must have a unique address. The folks monitoring and maintaining the machines need to be able to get unambiguously to that machine but that is a great use of 1918 space. Only fixed address spaces can be wasted. Wasting public IP addresses one per machine when there is no requirement seems to violate Anthony's claimed concern about address space. On the one hand, if you assign addresses sequentially, even a 32-bit address space will last for some time. On the other hand, if you do not use a fixed address space, there can be no waste. So my concern is not violated. Anthony rails here about waste of fixed address space yet advocates that in order for us to be pure, we must waste an IP address on every device that we need to identify as unique on the Internet. OK, which do you want? You can have both, if you use a variable address space. Better use of address space or a dictated waste of address space for a dubious technical need? See the telephone network for an example of how to have both.
Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
http://biz.yahoo.com/st/010705/27694.html Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel By James Ledbetter - European Executive Editor Proof of Concept TLD Development...and Multiple TLD Clusters http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html Multiple TLD Clusters are new. There is merit in having redundancy. Unfortunately, consumers will have to learn through their registrar or registry, that they would be prudent to register in BOTH TLD Cluster for the most reliable, stable service, with the widest reach. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12574.html RFC-2001-07-01-000 IPv8 Expansion of Proof of Concept TLD Development Jim Fleming http://www.DOT-Arizona.com http://www.DOT.Arizona
