On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 09:13:36AM -0400, Rob Raisch wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > One of the problems with "realnames" is that is not a replacement for DNS,
> > but only an "enhancement" to search engines. Realnames does not route
> > mail, or enable other tcp/ip connections other than web (http).
> > (for the sake of relevance to this thread, I will not discuss the myriad
> > of other problems with realnames).
>
> Of course RealNames is not a replacement for DNS and I did not mean to imply
> that it was.
>
> However, Centraal, by virtue of their bottom-up, consumer-value approach has
> created the closest thing we have yet seen to a replacement and this is a
> very important lesson we should all heed.
I'm not sure that it is relevant to the DNS, though. DNS has a
different, more technically oriented function. The lack of a
directory service, and the problems with people trying to force DNS
into the role of a directory service, have been debated for years in
the IETF.
People tend to forget the technical orientation of DNS, but by far the
greatest number of dns names in use are internal, ISP oriented names like
d120.dlls.tx.onramp.net.
It is also widely understood in IETF circles that IPv6, with its very
very large numeric addresses, will make such technically oriented use
of DNS necessary -- nowadays it's relatively easy to remember an IP
address, and indeed many domain names are longer than their
corresponding IP address. But in an IPv6 world it will become
extremely difficult to use IP addresses.
Another consideration in the move to IPv6, incidentally, is that
there will be billions of billions of billions more addresses than in
IPv4. When you add low-power wireless chips like Bluetooth to the
mix, you have an environment where it is practical to control
stoplights via the internet -- every lampost in a city could have its
own IP address, and a corresponding domain name.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
