"Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 10:22 AM 2/3/99 -0400, Kerry Miller wrote:
>>Would you be averse to being a portal for the others? To forming a co-op
>>to share operational costs?
>You obviously haven't really checked out MHSC. We're a security related
>business. [...] Do I want some stranger's meat-hooks in the heart of
>our network? Hah, our customers would fly to the nearest exit. It
>kind of defeats the security aspect, you know?
>There's a LOT more to a domain name than a mere web presence. There are
>LOTs of OTHER services that expect a domain to be constant. If there's a
>switch, round-robin style, it has to be done *real* careful and the other
>host had BETTER be identical to the first one. We set our root-servers up
>that way. They all give identical answers. Why is it done so? ... for
>load-sharing, that's why.
Some web sites who share the same name in different TLDs will direct
traffic to the others. For example, apache.net has a link on its site
to apache.org, the Apache httpd group. I don't know if this service
extends to other things, such as email, ftp, etc. I imagine that at
some point, it becomes cumbersome for a site to assume responsibility
for forwarding another site's services. Also, in some cases, it may
be in conflict of each site's operational goals (hypothetical example
-- I suppose [EMAIL PROTECTED] does not want to be bothered by a number
of apache bugs that need to go to [EMAIL PROTECTED], as I'm sure apache.net
has enough on their plate).
>I don't know you, but I'm a little miffed at gregbo for suggesting
>this, he knows better. I'm sure he's having some fun out of it.
Not really. Begging the list's pardon again, giving the round-robin
example was an attempt of an illustration of how a technology may
support certain types of use, but if the community that uses the
technology won't use it in that way, it won't be used. In the case of
one site being a portal to others, if sites sharing the same name in
different TLDs want to set up reciprocal or joint arrangements to
handle each other's traffic, they're certainly free to do so if they
choose, and the technology certainly supports it. My point is that
everyone should not be forced to make these changes.
>>Whoo! Isnt this not just the problem in DNS, but right here, where
>>the arguments are endless about 'only possible solutions,' and
>>totally ignore the reality that the list itself can only *persuade
>>'significant (numbers of) people' to any solution at all?
Kerry, you say you are an architect, right? Architects make decisions
based on principles that were developed within their field and other
related fields. When there are issues put under review, like building
construction codes, those generate debate, and not all parties agree
on what should be done. What procedures do architects use to resolve
their differences?
--gregbo
