In message <003901c142b2$63e04aa0$0100000a@Thor>, Thor Harald Johansen typed:
>>If I'm not completely mistaken, this is good old fashion bull. It's a joke.
correct - i guess i should have put a
:-)
for the clueless
note that given most names are of the form
foo.com
and are issued by a small number of authorities rather than the
original design goal of DNS being very very
distributed (and replicated) and hierarchical, actually
a fixed allocation of client/root server, and a hash lookup
implementation in the root/gTLD servers would actually work for about
95% of systems and maybe a lot better than currently:
given typical findings on the effectiveness of the access protocols
and of cacheing, e.g. see
"DNS Performance and the Effectiveness of Caching,"
by Jaeyeon Jung, Emil Sit, Hari Balakrishnan, and Robert Morris, is at
http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/papers/dns-imw2001.html
it might be wise to move to a more centralised system and be
honest:-)
>>Domain names (www.something.xyz) are resolved using a network of DNS (Domain
>>Name Service) servers. There are in fact a few central servers to this
>>system, but they usually don't serve the crowds. This is the job of each
>>ISPs own DNS servers, wich are updated frequently with new entries from the
>>central DNSes.
>>These servers also contains information for reverse resolving. That is to
>>find out wich IPs have been pointed to by a domain. The Internet would work
>>fine without domain names. It would just be a bit harder to use (you'd have
>>to type http://64.12.50.249/ instead of http://www.cnn.com/). I belive DNS
>>came a long time after IP addresses. :)
and took nearly as long to depoy as ipv6 and ip multicast:-)
i recall doing a comparison of druid and bind at UCL in the mid-late
1980s....about 7 years after we switched from ncp to tcp/ip...
cheers
jon
