The Next Big Thing: Named-Data Networking

Sun Sep 7 16:24:02 UTC 2014

Understand these were speaking notes and it was safe to assume the
audience basically understood DNS so it wasn't my intention to give an
exhaustive introduction to how DNS works.

There also seems to be some splitting of hairs over the meaning of
"site" in your response. That is, some sort of physical boundary vs an
authoritative boundary.

At any rate my proposal doesn't eliminate hierarchical addresses, it
just says (in brief) that "bits is bits" and IP numeric addresses per
se were mostly a product of modeling fast CPU registers which may not
be the only model. One could use the FQDNs themselves as hierarchical
addresses at least as an external representation.

It was intended to be a provocative proposal.

On September 7, 2014 at 11:11 mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta) wrote:
 > Barry Shein wrote:
 > 
 > > The idea is very simple, each site would be responsible for their own
 > > domain and to respond to simple remote requests for name to ip address
 > > mappings or back again.
 > 
 > Wrong. DNS is not that simple.
 > 
 > Domains and sites have, in general, independent topology
 > that sites can not be responsible for domains.
 > 
 > Perhaps, your misunderstanding is commonly shared by those
 > who believe in NDN, though they might think there are
 > negligible number of exceptions.
 > 
 > Then, data, mostly, could be routed based on name hierarchy,
 > which scales well.
 > 
 > The reality, however, is that exceptions are everywhere
 > and we need something like DNS to translate names into
 > something scalably routable, that is, hierarchical
 > addresses.
 > 
 > 						Masataka Ohta

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*