Emin Gun Sirer wrote:
Stephane & Phillip,
I'm thinking of writing a short report that summarizes the invaluable
discussion here and beefing up the system sketch. I think we now agree
that it is possible to have multiple operators manage names in a single,
shared namespace without recourse to a c
> But, with the expanded space, there is an issue of how to transition
> to the larger numbers. This is a software problem as much as
> anything.
Indeed, there is a software issue here which does not
seem to have been carefully considered.
>Until all software understands the bigger numbers, peop
> > You can solve the problems in various ways (see Emin Gun Sirer's
> > message) but most of them create a "super-registry" on the top of R1
> > and R2 and you are back to the unique registry model.
>
> This is a false statement. A basic course on distributed systems will
> cover lots of design a
Simon Leinen wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:
Incidentally, it does need to be [EMAIL PROTECTED] and not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Google, Yahoo and co need to stop
trying to turn us into serfs by refusing to allow us to own our own
online identity. Stop trying to make a service sticky by making
Emin Gun Sirer wrote:
As an Internet user, I wonder about two things in the long term:
- why is it so expensive to register a name?
- what can we do to keep SiteFinderJr from happening?
what do you think of as "expensive"?
I can register a name for a year for the price of 2
--On Tuesday, 28 November, 2006 22:48 +0100 Eliot Lear
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian Rosen wrote:
>> If you squint hard enough, everything has already been
>> invented. Telegraph operators had a form of presence if you
>> squint hard enough.
>>
>> Presence is a continuously updated 'displ
Actually, as I fuzzily recall in the 1986 - 1992-ish period, MCImail had a
large presence for business messaging and CompuServe had a lion's share of
consumer messaging.
Before the flames go on, realize that (1) my memory is fuzzy and (2) the
market was seriously fractured. The large enterprise m
> However, what this subthread demonstrates is
> that they were conceptually an incremental change, not a giant,
> discontinuous, intellectual leap.
>
> I thought we all knew that.
Oh, I agree, we knew that. There are very, very few discontinuous
intellectual leaps in our part of the universe.
On Nov 29, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:
However, what this subthread demonstrates is
that they were conceptually an incremental change, not a giant,
discontinuous, intellectual leap.
I thought we all knew that.
Oh, I agree, we knew that. There are very, very few discontinuous
intell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Until all software understands the bigger numbers, people
will want to continue using the 16-bit ones.
The IESG message talked about numbers from 65536 to some
big number. Here suddenly, we see a reference to some
number of bits.
Meanwhile, to encourage the migration
Brian E Carpenter wrote, On 29/11/2006 10:43:
> your question is linked to whether we treat the namespace as a public
> good to be administered for the greater public good, or as a
> commodity to be treated like coffee beans. And that really isn't
> a question for this technological community.
Depe
"Brian Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/29/2006 08:16:35 AM:
> > However, what this subthread demonstrates is
> > that they were conceptually an incremental change, not a giant,
> > discontinuous, intellectual leap.
> >
> > I thought we all knew that.
> Oh, I agree, we knew that. There ar
On 28Nov 2006, at 9:36 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
path MTU and have to be fragmented. (By-the-way, why is EDNS/RFC
2671 not
advancing on the standards track?)
For the same reason almost none of the other DNS RFCs have not
advanced.
Any volunteers for performing interoperability tests an
On 29-Nov-2006, at 08:30, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the NANOG list it has already been pointed out that a lot
of network management software cannot handle such notation and
in some cases, 1.0 could be interpreted as the IP address 1.0.0.0.
It has been confirmed that
> what do you think of as "expensive"?
Anything that has 1000% or higher markup. There is also another kind of
expense: solving the SiteFinder problem took a lot of time, public
outcry and moral outrage from a large group of people. It would have
been nice to just scoot over to a competitor. These
> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Emin Gun Sirer wrote:
> >
> > As an Internet user, I wonder about two things in the long term:
> > - why is it so expensive to register a name?
> > - what can we do to keep SiteFinderJr from happening?
> >
> what do you think of as
I don't think that would be the only patent you would need
> -Original Message-
> From: Douglas Otis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 9:56 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Patrick Vande Walle; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Something better than DNS?
>
>
Before the web it was possible to be on a different network and still exchange
email. It did not work at all well but it did work sorta.
Even though the web did in theory work on other protocols (I ran a server on
HEPNET) most of the content was on the Internet.
So there was a different value p
> From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > However, what this subthread demonstrates is that they were
> > conceptually an incremental change, not a giant, discontinuous,
> > intellectual leap.
> >
> > I thought we all knew that.
> Oh, I agree, we knew that. There are very, very few
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Joe Abley wrote:
On 29-Nov-2006, at 08:30, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the NANOG list it has already been pointed out that a lot
of network management software cannot handle such notation and
in some cases, 1.0 could be interpreted as the IP addre
At 11:42 -0500 11/29/06, Emin Gun Sirer wrote:
Let's not torque the discussion off topic. Free market economics does
not come to bear on the issue because there is no free market to speak
of for registries.
What did I say about frictionless surfaces?
A quick question: Right now, we'd like to
But, with the expanded space, there is an issue of how to transition
to the larger numbers. This is a software problem as much as
anything. Until all software understands the bigger numbers, people
will want to continue using the 16-bit ones.
I had a shot at documenting this in the form of a
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
one nice thing about the schema/protocol being part of the naming scheme
is that it does *not* tie me to a single provider for all services - my
jabber service for [EMAIL PROTECTED] is provisioned from someone
who's got no relationship at all to my mail and web servic
Janet P Gunn wrote:
The original Ethernet? (not really "discontinuous", but quite a big leap)
I think that Ethernet, like the Web, are actually excellent COUNTER-examples.
Ethernet is Alohanet with carrier-sense, collision-detect, exponential backoff.
And, of course, it runs over wire rath
See
http://www.softarmor.com/wgdb/docs/draft-schulzrinne-sipping-id-relationships-00.txt
for an expired draft on this topic.
There is an architectural 'trick' here, that I suspect is the key for
making thing homogenize in a way that is tractable:
The underlying specifications permit you
On 29-Nov-2006, at 12:14, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Joe Abley wrote:
On 29-Nov-2006, at 08:30, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the NANOG list it has already been pointed out that a lot
of network management software cannot handle such notation and
i
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Joe Abley wrote:
I did not see any consensus on that issue when it was brought to NANOG-m.
Interesting. I didn't notice any support for separating the 32-bit quantity
into two sections, but I remember many people decrying the need for any
separator at all.
I'd have to
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 12:40:09PM -0500,
Edward Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 56 lines which said:
> The terminology used here indicates a need for a deeper understanding of
> DNS.
I suspect that he is deliberately trolling, in order to prove a point
(that DNS is too limited t
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 11:42:17AM -0500,
Emin Gun Sirer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 36 lines which said:
> Right now, we'd like to have a domain delegated to a large number
> (say 100+) of nameservers.
See Edward Lewis' respond (basically, global anycast + local anycast
and you hav
Hi -
I actually think the question of how a namespace is to be administered
is a perfectly valid one for the IETF to consider if it impacts the
performance or functionality of a protocol.
We do that all the time when we give explicit instructions to the IANA
in an "IANA Considerations" sectio
Henning,
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
you might want to look at the SIP design, which offers most of the
functionality you describe already. The notion of a common address
(prefixed to generate a URL by the communication scheme, be it sip: or,
more generically, pres: or im:) were part of the de
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:33:15 -0800
Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The underlying specifications permit you to have different
> addresses, for different services. They also permit you to have the
> *same* address.
>
This is only a good idea if coupled with a powerful, easy-to
I absolutely agree with Steve here, but I think that the problem here is too
little integration, not too much. I don't think that this security through
obscurity scales very well.
There needs to be a gatekeeper. If someone wants to schedule a call with me,
fine, just drop me a note first so I c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's why it seems quite reasonable to continue
work on the protocol as a more general distributed
database service. But not on port 53 which is
mission critical for the ONE NETWORK which
rules them all.
The essential argument that you are making, I think, is about
> From: Edward Lewis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> At 11:42 -0500 11/29/06, Emin Gun Sirer wrote:
>
> >Let's not torque the discussion off topic. Free market
> economics does
> >not come to bear on the issue because there is no free
> market to speak
> >of for registries.
>
> What did I say ab
On Nov 29, 2006, at 8:53 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I don't think that would be the only patent you would need
Here is a somewhat more complete list:
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2006/msg01076.html
-Doug
___
Ie
36 matches
Mail list logo
