NAVYJOBS.COM

Tue Apr 23 00:42:30 UTC 1996

Vadim asks:

>Why not to restrict first-level domains to companies
>which can demonstrate that they have 1000+ hosts?

Creating a problem to solve a problem is not a solution.
Paul already said that a 16MB 486 can handle root DNS just fine.
This does not bespeak of a problem requiring "renumbering"
hundreds of thousands of domains.

FURTHER, your "big win" is only a 1/26 lessening of load.
If the problem is such that 1/26 is a "big win" I think
it's not big enough to rename the Internet for.

...
>What we should worry about is number of first-level
>domains/number of hosts ratio.  It is the same problem
>as with routing.  The solution is also the same --

No, it's not the same problem as routing.  All routers with
non-default rules need to know about all routes.  The only
possible analogy for that in DNS is root nameservers.  These
(as Paul pointed out in a previous post, since he runs F)
are not saturated, and don't require that many resources.

If you feel the growth of domain names is such that it will
outstrip a 486 w/16MB soon, tell me when it will be a
SIGNIFICANT problem.  I.e. when will it outstrip a real
machine (Sun, VAX, Alpha, SGI) with real memory (64MB?
128MB?  4G?) 

Remember, upgrading HUNDREDS of routers all running 45Mbps
is a priority.  Upgrading 8 boxes running BIND and doing
it well is a much much much lower priority.

>mnemonic can be used to distinguish between thousands of
>nearly identical small businesses?)

>--vadim

>PS.  Obviously if IBM registers 100 domain names it is
>     still a lot less damage than a small ISP (with 1000 dial-up
>     customers) which registers a domain name for every such
>     customer.  Big folks registering POISONOUS-BURGER.COM and
>     SHIT-ON-TV.COM aren't really a problem.  Zillion of
>     MOM-AND-POP.COMs is.

Ehud