In message <825c8ac7-c01e-4934-92fd-e7b9e8091...@arbor.net>, Roland Dobbins wri tes: > > On Aug 5, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > We might have an alternative one day, but it's going to happen by > > accident, through generalization of an internal naming service > > employed by a widely-used application. > > Or even more likely, IMHO, that more and more applications will have > their own naming services which will gradually reduce the perceived > need for a general-purpose system - i.e., the centrality of DNS won't > be subsumed into any single system (remember X.500?), but, rather, by > a multiplicity of systems.
Been there, done that, doesn't work well. For all it's short comings the DNS and the single namespace it brings is much better than having a multitude of namespaces. Yes I've had to work with a multitude of namespaces and had to map between them. Ugly. > [Note that I'm not advocating this particular approach; I just think > it's the most likely scenario.] > > Compression/conflation of the transport stack will likely be both a > driver and an effect of this trend, over time. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Roland Dobbins <rdobb...@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> > > Unfortunately, inefficiency scales really well. > > -- Kevin Lawton > > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
