At 10:12 06/09/2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 6-sep-2005, at 1:48, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> So for those people that aren't capable of running their own DNS,
I agree with everything you say. But with this one. I think the
problem is there is no free Linux/Windows nameserver with a smart
enough control panel for everyone being able to run their own DNS.
May be a project to dig into rather than to endanger the DNS?
It would be an interesting experiment to make an easy-to-use DNS
implementation for local use that runs on a residential gateway. But
to be part of the global DNS requires delegation pointers from
elsewhere, and most residential/SOHO users don't have addresses that
are stable enough to make this usable. This may change with IPv6,
though.
I am afraid not. The real digital divide is between those who can be
called and those who cannot by lack of money for an IP address (the
cost of an IPv6 address is also the software change, education,
missing user tools). This results from an old and costly model (RIRs)
rather than using a network model (like telephone). This was needed
in a deployment period, this is a blocking factor for a mature global
network continuity.
It is a real shame that the entire world has E.164 numbers, with
billions of people paying them every month, using every days,
possibly keeping them all their life long, using them for the
telephone, as customer ID, when they want to be differentiate from
homonyms in databases, etc. and they cannot use on the ... modern
... Internet. By the ITU or by the RIRs, what is the problem to have
an IPv6 plan made of a leading byte+telephone number? What is the
problem of entering a telephone number in a browser and to access the
corresponding byte+telnr IPv6 address?
In the meanwhile is there an impossibility to think of small
softwares acting as a local name server and as an external resolver.
Is there a major problem in having the IP addresses managed
dynamically (mobile systems would need them anyway)? Is there a big
problem to get a hook before or after Hosts.txt so anyone can
organise the responses he wants, for his applications?
I think the real problem is to gather a DNS reference book. So the
specs, the functions, the tricks of the protocol, the samples of
existing code are documented authoritatively, a test bed is organised
and new people with fresh ideas can come, learn and realistically
develop new projects without being shout at "RFC XXXX!" or start an
IETF war. mDNS and LLMNR are just that: working ideas. In 22 years
should we not have had a lot more?
They represent a danger for the DNS? May be, only if the DNS is not
fool proof or at least resilient enough or embedded in a more global
system the user has an immediate interest to protect because it would
affect much more, like in the DRS (distributed registry system I
alluded to and which seems an interesting area of research). IMHO it
is in that directions the IETF should work.
Anyway do not worry too much about a DNS network overload, without a
DRS the langtags support may do better and faster.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf