On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Mike Fisk wrote:
explosion. So over time there becomes an established club of roots and
everybody else has to be a child. That creates a monopolistic situation
where you have to pay a root node for transit. It could work, but it
sounds worse than the existing DNS root mess.
How do you preserve the decentralized resilience of the Internet with such
a hierarchy?
We do have such a thing in the Internet today. It used to be DARPA, and now
it's IANA, and is still very much US-centric; we have regional bodies
spec'd out for IPv6 that will control not only names but also addresses.
In the proposed framework, you would only ask your immediate provider for
connectivity - (s)he doesn't have to coordinate nationally and internationally
to give you an address, and it's enough if your chosen name doesn't clash
with something already registered at the provider's name server. So I'd think
it's less of a mess than the DNS and IP are today in that regard.
maintain a reasonable number (< 100k?) of peers. For efficient table
lookup, there would be a push to standardize on a length limitation. So
You've just created a situation where the root club will enforce
sufficient hierarchy so as to limit the size of route tables.
Like //com/ibm/watson/affine/tmp/vinet.pdf? Seems to be working ok for now.
What I'm wondering is why/whether the residual defects, which are common
to the DNS, should detract from the improvements/alternatives/differences
that you haven't commented on.
thanks,
-p.