North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
- From: Michael.Dillon
- Date: Mon May 15 04:35:28 2006
> > 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.
> Amazing how many experienced people seem to be saying this isn't
> given there are already schemes out there using flat namespaces for
> problems (e.g. Skype, freenet, various file sharing systems). Most of
> are also far more dynamic than the DNS in nature, and most have no
> overhead with them, you run the software and the namespace "just works".
According to your description, this is a hierarchical naming
system. At the top level you have Skype, freenet, etc.
defining separate namespaces. Because DNS was intended to be
a universal naming system, it had to incorporate the hierarchy
into the system.
> However I think the pain in DNS for most people is the hierarchy, but
> diverse registration systems. i.e. It isn't that it is delegated, it is
> delegates all "do their own thing".
Seems to me that this is part of the definition
of "delegate". Some would say that this makes for
a more robust system than a monolithic hierarchy
where everyone has to toe the party line.
> I've always pondered doing a flat, simple part of the DNS, or even
> an overlay,
> but of course it needs a business model of sorts.
It has been tried at least twice and failed.