At 11:42 PM 5/11/2006, Jim Popovitch wrote:

>David Schwartz wrote:
>The major problem with this is that many other governments
>have "dangerous
>>ideas" that they'd also like to be easily able to identify and isolate as
>>well. If the United States gets to corral porn, why can't China corral
>>Democracy? Why can't Russia corral advocates of "terrorism" (which some
>>might consider independence).
>I think it would be an incredibly short-sighted policy on
>the part of the
>>U.S. government to restrict the Internet in the hopes of controlling things
>>like gambling and pornography. The precedent of government isolating
>>"dangerous ideas" will be adopted by many other governments and we will have
>>no sound ideological grounds to oppose.
>
>Excellent points.
>
>I question then why we even have a need for any TLDs.

Why do we even need domain names at all outside our own entities for network
management, mail,and a few minor services now that we have google?
-M<

Fri, 12 May 2006, Jim Popovitch wrote:

Fred Baker wrote:
>
>May 11, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>
Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog
>
>For the same reason DNS was created in the first place. You will recall
>that we actually HAD a hostname file that we traded around
>
Let's not go backwards now ;-)

Actually we in fact still have all that - bunch of records (around 230k
now) distributed globally with specialized protocol. There is of course
some talk that combined with 15%/year growth that is not sustainable
long-term

Note: I didn't advocate replacing DNS with host files. I'll attempt to
clarify: If X number of DNS servers can server Y number of TLDs, why
can't X number of completely re-designed DNS servers handle just root
domain names without a TLD.

I strongly suspect that they actually can right now. But like above
mentioned distributed 230k "host route file", many millions of records
entered in just a few dns servers may not be scalable long-term.

However I think each name in the root zone is not workable solution
primarily politically - there are too many organizations with same
name - some can be identified by their area of specialty, some
identified by their specific geographic location and many many others
are not that distinguishable but still have the same name.

What about trademarks you ask? Well the thing is what is trademark
in one geographic location, may not be trademark in another. Nor are
all the trademarks truly universal for all types of activity.

So while our current system is not perfect for everyone, in general
it seems to be the only right approach to take. Unfortunately this
does leave many holes that are abused for financial reasons in
various ways. But I think system with global names in root zones
would be abused in even worth ways

At 02:22 AM 5/12/2006, Jim Popovitch wrote:

>Fred Baker wrote:
>May 11, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>
Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog
>>For the same reason DNS was created in the first place. You will
>>recall that we actually HAD a hostname file that we traded around
>
>Let's not go backwards now ;-)
>
>Note: I didn't advocate replacing DNS with host files. I'll attempt
>to clarify: If X number of DNS servers can server Y number of TLDs,
>why can't X number of completely re-designed DNS servers handle just
>root domain names without a TLD.
>
>Examples:
>
www.microsoft
smtp.microsoft
www.google
www.yahoo
mail.yahoo
>
>Why have a TLD when for most of the world:
>
www.cnn.CUK is forwarded to www.cnn.CM

www.microsoft.NET is forwarded to www.microsoft.CM

www.google.NET is forwarded to www.google.CM

etc., etc.
>
>There are very few arguments that I've heard for even having TLDs in
>the first place. The most common one was "Businesses will use .CM,
>Networks will use .NET, and Garden Clubs will use
>RG". When in reality Businesses scoop up all the TLDs in their name/interest.

Yes, but that was when you actually wouldn't dare get a .org for
yourself unless
you really were qualified under the guidelines. Same for .net. The
distinctions
have been meaningless for quite some time. They are simply placeholders.


>Why does it matter if your routers and switches are in DNS as
>123.company.NET vrs 123.routers.company
>
>I do understand that today's DNS system was designed with TLDs in
>mind, and probably couldn't just switch over night. But why can't a
>next-gen system be put in place that puts www.microsoft and
>www.google right where they go now whether you use .net, .com, .org,
>or probably any other TLD?

Im having an offline discussion with a list member and I'll ask, why
does it matter if
you have a domain name if a directory can hold everything you need to
know about them
via key words and ip-addrs, NAT's and all?
-M<

Steve Gibbard wrote:

Note that there are a lot more TLDs than just .CM, .NET, RG, etc.
The vast majority of them are geographical rather than divided based on
organizational function. For large portions of the world, the local TLD
allows domain holders to get a domain paid for in local currency, for a
price that's locally affordable, with local DNS servers for the TLD.
For gTLDs they'd have to pay in US dollars, at prices that are set for
Americans, and have them served far away on the other ends of expensive
and flaky International transit connections.
-Steve

The problem with ccTLDs is the same as with telefone numbers. You lose
them as soon as you move.

Maybe that is not a problem in north america, but in europe it is. You
must live in a country to be allowed to register and keep a domain there.

Peter and Karin

5/12/06, Jim Popovitch <jimpop (AT) yahoo (DOT) comwrote:
Elimination of TLDs would in no way mandate that people register domains
from one global entity. Today we have multiple entities registering
domains back to multiple authorities, why not just have one authority
and allow for multiple regional registrars. TLDs just add confusion to
everything, and add complexity to the back-end.

Perhaps there is a better list to move this discussion to, if someone
would point me in that direction I would be glad to check it out.

There is no list to which you could move this "discussion" -- that
ship sailed almost 23 years ago (see RFC882 and RFC883).

The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side
effect: distribution of load by explicitly avoiding a flat entity
namespace. The DNS has a hierarchical namespace for a reason, and
arguments to the contrary will convince on the order of sqrt(-1)
people.

Fred Baker wrote:

Now, as to ccTLDs vs gTLDs, if anyone wants to eliminate one or the
other they get my vote.

The political reality is that ccTLDs will never go away. The business
reality is that gTLDs (at least the majority of the ones we have now) will
never go away. So, can we move on to something *slightly* less pointless,
like moving .gov and .mil under .us where they belong? :)

Doug

May 12, 2006 at 14:51 tv (AT) pobox (DOT) com (Todd Vierling) wrote:
The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side
effect: distribution of load by explicitly avoiding a flat entity
namespace. The DNS has a hierarchical namespace for a reason, and
arguments to the contrary will convince on the order of sqrt(-1)
people.

As if you couldn't just hash on whatever the last component is and
pick a server on that basis? Query(server[Sum(bytes) mod Nservers])?

There are probably good answers to people's suggestions for change but
working backwards from "that's the way we've always done it" with
trailing remarks intended to stifle a response isn't, to my mind, an
answer.

The best answer I can think of off-hand is that dropping .com etc
wouldn't add much, if anything. Any savings in typing would be off-set
by having to generate non-colliding names which would've been .com and
org, etc. It would just be creating a new TLD, the null TLD moving
collision avoidance left by one.

As to .XXX:

To my mind the real camel's nose in the tent is that to create it
would seem to urge or at least validate its enforcement and coercive
means would necessarily arise (civil lawsuits, criminal charges,
regulatory apparatus.)

of what use would it be, in terms of the conceptions of its
champions as opposed to unintended consequences?

The deeper problem is the conception by many (unwashed) that someone
must be in charge, we used to get calls asking for contact info for
the Internet complaint dept, and they didn't mean us. People were
often shocked to hear that we had no answer.

And widespread conceptions like that have a way of materializing, sans
some force of resistance.

I suppose some may say it's 10 years too late for that comment.

5/12/06, Barry Shein <bzs (AT) world (DOT) std.comwrote:
May 12, 2006 at 14:51 tv (AT) pobox (DOT) com (Todd Vierling) wrote:
The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side
effect: distribution of load by explicitly avoiding a flat entity
namespace. The DNS has a hierarchical namespace for a reason, and
arguments to the contrary will convince on the order of sqrt(-1)
people.

As if you couldn't just hash on whatever the last component is and
pick a server on that basis? Query(server[Sum(bytes) mod Nservers])?

There are probably good answers to people's suggestions for change but
working backwards from "that's the way we've always done it"

If you bothered to read the 1983 RFCs I mentioned, and others related
to machine naming, you'd realize that the DNS of today is not, in
fact, "the way we've always done it."

The namespace *was* flat, once. That didn't scale, and not just
because of technical limitations -- the fact that there are only so
many useful combinations of 26 letters in a relatively short name had
some weight in there too. So hierarchical naming was standardized
(some forms of nonstandard hierarchy existed before then), and it's
unlikely we're going back anytime in the foreseeable future.

Changing *how* the names are structured into a different hierarchy of
organization, I could believe. Changing the fact that they are
structured back to being unstructured the ship has already sailed.

May 12, 2006 at 18:12 tv (AT) pobox (DOT) com (Todd Vierling) wrote:
5/12/06, Barry Shein <bzs (AT) world (DOT) std.comwrote:
May 12, 2006 at 14:51 tv (AT) pobox (DOT) com (Todd Vierling) wrote:
The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side
effect: distribution of load by explicitly avoiding a flat entity
namespace. The DNS has a hierarchical namespace for a reason, and
arguments to the contrary will convince on the order of sqrt(-1)
people.
>
As if you couldn't just hash on whatever the last component is and
pick a server on that basis? Query(server[Sum(bytes) mod Nservers])?
>
There are probably good answers to people's suggestions for change but
working backwards from "that's the way we've always done it"

If you bothered to read the 1983 RFCs I mentioned, and others related
to machine naming, you'd realize that the DNS of today is not, in
fact, "the way we've always done it."

I've been on the net since 1977, nearly 30 years. I participated in
the public discussions which led to the current DNS system. I managed
Boston University's campus-wide internet environment when the DNS
system was implemented ca 1984-5.

When my group connected BU to the internet the host table was still in
use. Hunt down "BU joins the internet", a typo in our initial update
tickled a bug in the bsd hosttable program which brought down about
2/3 of the internet (yes, down.) I can't say I'm proud of that, but
it's kind of hard to forget.

The namespace *was* flat, once. That didn't scale, and not just
because of technical limitations -- the fact that there are only so
many useful combinations of 26 letters in a relatively short name had
some weight in there too. So hierarchical naming was standardized
(some forms of nonstandard hierarchy existed before then), and it's
unlikely we're going back anytime in the foreseeable future.

But there's no technical advantage of a hierarchical system over a
simple hashing scheme, they're basically isomorphic other than a hash
system can more easily be tuned to a particular distribution goal.

There might be political or sociological or managerial advantages, but
spreading out requests in a reasonably balanced manner among more than
one server is a fairly simple technical problem.

So that alone is not really a showstopper.

I don't dispute the practical, non-technical issues.

Changing *how* the names are structured into a different hierarchy of
organization, I could believe. Changing the fact that they are
structured back to being unstructured the ship has already sailed.

So your argument is that it shouldn't be considered because that's not
the way it is.

At any rate, as I said in my note I'm not advocating this, I'm just
pointing out that some of the arguments against it have been rather
shallow, claiming it wasn't technically practical or that's not the
way it's been done so that's not the way it will be done.

There's no particular technical reason not to flatten the namespace,
particularly 30 years later with modern hardware where the compute
cost of hashing vs strrchr(host,'.') wouldn't be as much of an issue.

There are practical, non-technical issues.

My understanding wasn't that the suggestion was to eliminate all
hierarchy, only to eliminate the manor TLDs (.com, .net, .org), I
believe the example was something like lists.nanog rather than
lists.nanog.org.