Domain names for ISP infrastructure links

Philip J. Nesser II pjnesser at
Wed Jan 8 00:47:10 UTC 1997

John Curran supposedly said:
> At 17:25 1/7/97, John W. Stewart III wrote:
> >conventions are fine
> >
> >and it's helpful to users and operators alike for names to
> >contain a fair amount of information
> >
> >but "standardizing" with fixed-width fields, pop codes,
> >next-hop router, etc. doesn't seem that productive when
> >providers are gonna do what they want anyway. 
> No...  we're going to mandate OID-style router names
> for the world's Internet providers:  
>   <isoc-tree>.<internet-infrastructure branch>.
>   <iso country code>.<city ordinal>.<provider #>.
>   <facility #>.<rack #>.<shelf #>.<router ordinal>
> Great fun to watch (it could be happening this way
> in the alternate universe next door.)
> ;-)
> /John  

Which is exactly why I asked the question if people are serious about
this.  I have great fun specifying things (hey thats why I like the IETF
:-) and would happily spend a few hours coming up with all sorts of great
specifications but I want to know if they have any chance of being adopted.

--->  Phil

More information about the NANOG mailing list