In message <20590.7539.491575.455...@world.std.com>, Barry Shein writes: > > In Singapore in June 2011 I gave a talk at HackerSpaceSG about just > doing away with IP addresses entirely, and DNS. > > Why not just use host names directly as addresses? Bits is bits, FQDNs > are integers because, um, bits is bits. They're even structured so you > can route on the network portion etc.
It's the worst idea I've heard in a long time. Names have nothing to do with physical location or how you reach a machine. > Routers themselves could hash them into some more efficient form for > table management but that wouldn't be externally visible. I did > suggest a standard for such hashing just to help with debugging etc > but it'd only be a suggestion or perhaps common display format. > > About the only obvious objection, other than vague handwaves about > compute efficiency, is it would potentially make packets a lot longer > in the worst case scenario, longer than common MTUs tho not much > longer unless we also allow a lengthening of host name max, 1024 right > now I believe? So 2K max for src/dest and whatever other overhead > payload you need, not unthinkable. > > OTOH, it just does away with DNS entirely which is some sort of > savings. > > There are obviously some more details required, this email is not a > replacement for a set of RFCs! > > -- > -Barry Shein > > The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada > Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org