North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
- From: Jim Popovitch
- Date: Fri May 12 02:23:54 2006
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=IKXEALun9lZ9MnyRvcjYX+1/fugRSWG9DUf2pZTzRrMK0YvilFDhaxFl82Pgf3iwhBqdRVbzrN9og3kW6QKSryWxGJdccsDfoUwV4yohwJwTesEHlXOcPBQBIz9a3AeBtL45bKjxa2pBzzZ89BsoXDzCKCGYvzsTyqRD6vjoSY8= ;
Fred Baker wrote:
Let's not go backwards now.... ;-)
On May 11, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
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...
Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog
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.
Why have a TLD when for most of the world:
www.cnn.CO.UK is forwarded to www.cnn.COM
www.microsoft.NET is forwarded to www.microsoft.COM
www.google.NET is forwarded to www.google.COM
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 .COM,
Networks will use .NET, Organizations and Garden Clubs will use .ORG".
When in reality Businesses scoop up all the TLDs in their name/interest.
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