Deep (many label) DNS names work fine. But for some reason the DNS system has long suffered from lust for the root where people scramble for DNS names with the minimum number of labels. This, coupled with the marketing efforts of some TLD owners resulting in very wide zones that require huge servers, are harder to deploy DNSSEC on, etc. It's wide zones that are a potential problem, not deep names.
(There is some logic in going for short domain names interms of total number of characters or ease of memorization. But based on that, 1.2.3.example would be superior to onetwothree.example. Yet people lust after the second...) Thanks, Donald ====================================================================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [EMAIL PROTECTED] 155 Beaver Street +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-786-7554(w) Milford, MA 01757 USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Felix, Zhang wrote: > Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:02:36 +0800 > From: "Felix, Zhang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Question for the DNS system. > > Dear all, > > According to the current Internet, in most cases, the > allocation/design of DNS is not more than 3-5 levels, such as > us.ibm.com etc. What's my problems is that "when using lots of DNS > names with more than 5 levels, Is there some problem with the whole > DNS system, such as some performance problem for searching, > dificulities to operate etc.....? Could the current DNS tree > architecure bear large traffic or not?" Is there somebody can provide > some real data about the current Internet, such as average search time > etc. > > As everyone knows, IPv6 is coming .......... :-) > > Best regards. > > Yours Felix. Zhang.
