Exactly. But there is nothing other than those vicarious personal
conceptualizations, even if most of them are provably wrong given enough
time and resources. Given the available level of those factors, what
pragmatic solutions would one find? Greg Skinner's acceptance of differences
as a fact of
> However, it still is not necessarily true. Some time back in this
> thread I pointed out that Internet routing has in effect thousands of
> independent roots, the autonomous systems (ASs) which in combination
> are the Internet. Each AS has its own separate routing policy, each
> decides ind
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Insofar as you are commenting upon this, you seem to have missed my
> > narrow technical point. Roberto Gaetano asserted that an IP address
> > uniquely identifies a domain name. This is not true.
>
> Speaking about missing the points, I come ba
> Therefore, while if you pick up the phone and call a number you will get
> *always* to the same person, in the proposed system you type a domain name
> and you will get to a different domain *depending on how your system is
> configured*.
A couple of thoughts:
- The telephone system is evolv
Roberto and all,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Richard,
> >
> > Hello. This has nothing to do with multiple roots.
> >
>
> Suppose that you want to reach the Yahoo site.
> Under the current system ("legacy", if you want), with one root system, you
> are sure to get it by typing http:\\www.yahoo
Richard and all,
Good point. We certainly know for certain that Roberto doesn't
at this juncture! >;)
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> Sombody ought to figure out what percentage of people in the
> DNSO actually know how DNS works. That might be important
> some day.
>
> --
> Richard Sexton | [
Roberto and all,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jim,
>
> You wrote (answering Mark's message):
> >
> > Insofar as you are commenting upon this, you seem to have missed my
> > narrow technical point. Roberto Gaetano asserted that an IP address
> > uniquely identifies a domain name. This is not true
Richard,
>
> Hello. This has nothing to do with multiple roots.
>
Suppose that you want to reach the Yahoo site.
Under the current system ("legacy", if you want), with one root system, you
are sure to get it by typing http:\\www.yahoo.com.
If you have multiple roots, that point to differen
Sombody ought to figure out what percentage of people in the
DNSO actually know how DNS works. That might be important
some day.
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.nethttp://www.mbz.orghttp://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ont
>The example was aimed at showing that while the telephone numbers are
>unique, domain names are not if we allow multiple independent roots.
Hello. This has nothing to do with multiple roots.
ns1 IN A 199.166.24.1
IN A 204.138.71.254
# nslookup ns1
Server: ns1.vrx.net
Jim,
You wrote (answering Mark's message):
>
> Insofar as you are commenting upon this, you seem to have missed my
> narrow technical point. Roberto Gaetano asserted that an IP address
> uniquely identifies a domain name. This is not true.
Speaking about missing the points, I come back to thi
At 03:05 PM 7/27/99 , Jim Dixon wrote:
>Insofar as you are commenting upon this, you seem to have missed my
>narrow technical point. Roberto Gaetano asserted that an IP address
>uniquely identifies a domain name. This is not true. Sometimes a name
>corresponds to many IP addresses (as in round-
Nice post Jim. I interviewed the CTO of Williams (Tulsa OK) today.
He is selling OC48s as single lambdas using Sycamore transponders at
60% of the price of the sonet equivatent. provisioning time 6 days
as opposed to 6 months for sonet. They have had the service
commercially released for 3
Mark;
The phone system deals with switching current, line voltage syncronization,
levels and all sorts of probems you deal with in the analog realm. You
need a central authority in this case.
But, the Internet uses a completley differnet technology and got
to be as big as it is as a result of a
At 12:39 PM 7/27/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Mark Measday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> There's probably about to be (iii) technical innovation is always
>> stifled by the genius that produced it aka Internet, unless the
>> creative energies of the people who actually shepherded the system
>> into ex
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Mark Measday wrote:
> Jim,
>
> It is a commonplace, I think, that if you can disprove the phone system analogy
> below with sufficient force, or a sufficiently powerful replacement analogy, you
> win. However, noone has done so.
I have to disagree. The Internet's amazing
At 03:28 PM 7/27/99 , Mark Measday wrote:
>Jim,
>
>It is a commonplace, I think, that if you can disprove the phone system analogy
>below with sufficient force, or a sufficiently powerful replacement analogy, you
>win. However, noone has done so. The US PTO, the large telcos, the lawyers and bits
Mark Measday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's probably about to be (iii) technical innovation is always
> stifled by the genius that produced it aka Internet, unless the
> creative energies of the people who actually shepherded the system
> into existence can be marshalled to demonstrate the
18 matches
Mail list logo
