Re: names are not numbers, was IPv4 address length technical design
Back in the 80s when DNS was a fairly new idea and things like Google were way in the future I remember suggesting on the TCP-IP list that people grab a phone number they owned as a domain name and add first_last as a mailbox so we could leverage the international phone directory system to find each other. For example something like barry_sh...@0016176403067.com (maybe insert a letter, all-digits wasn't allowed back then.) I guess that sort of idea was eventually incorporated into telephone number mapping but not clear how successful that is or if the intent is really the same. I think there were other analogues? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_number_mapping But the idea has come up. -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: names are not numbers, was IPv4 address length technical design
In article 20592.28334.622769.539...@world.std.com you write: It's occured to you that FQDNs contain some structured information, no? Hey, I've got a great idea. Let's lose this silly phone number portability nonsense and use phone numbers as routes. I mean, anyone who moves and takes his cell phone with him has only himself to blame, right? R's, John
Re: names are not numbers, was IPv4 address length technical design
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:14 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: Hey, I've got a great idea. Let's lose this silly phone number portability nonsense and use phone numbers as routes. You do not want to go down the hell hole that is SS7. -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
