IPv4 address length technical design

Sat Oct 6 18:35:32 UTC 2012

Well, George, you can take a new idea and run with it a bit, or just
resist it right from the start.

We can map from host names to ip addresses to routing actions, right?

So clearly they're not unrelated or independent variables. There's a
smooth function from hostname->ipaddr->routing.

Take an extreme but extremely common case, the home or small office
end user.

Those packets only have exactly one place to go, right? One default
route.

So why do they need to turn a host name into an IP address at all to
ship a packet? The first-hop route is always exactly the same for
every single packet.

Is this a good use of DNS computrons? Answering DNS inquiries for
every new connection for every single-routed host on the internet?

Van Jacobson had a similar observation vis a vis TCP and PPP header
compression, why keep sending the same bits back and forth over a PPP
link for example? Why not just an encapsulation which says "same as
previous"?

Now, how can that be generalized?

   -b

On October 6, 2012 at 11:06 george.herbert at gmail.com (George Herbert) wrote:
 > As I said earlier, names' structure does not map to network or physical location structure.
 > 
 > DNS is who; IP is where.  Both are reasonably efficient now as separate entities.  Combining them will wreck one.  You're choosing to wreck routing (where), which to backbone people sounds frankly stark raving mad.
 > 
 > If you aren't willing to consider where / routing as a problem of equal importance ( not as end-user visible perhaps, but ultimately as important ), then you're just pissing around and not being serious about exploring future options.
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > George William Herbert
 > Sent from my iPhone
 > 
 > On Oct 6, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
 > 
 > > 
 > > It's occured to you that FQDNs contain some structured information,
 > > no?
 > > 
 > >   -b
 > > 
 > > On October 5, 2012 at 21:47 bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) wrote:
 > >> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
 > >>> 5. Bits is bits.
 > >>> I don't know how to say that more clearly.
 > >> 
 > >> Hi Barry,
 > >> 
 > >> Bits is bits and atoms is atoms so lets swap all the iron for helium
 > >> and see how that works out for us.
 > >> 
 > >> You can say "bits as bits" as clearly as you like but however you say
 > >> it you'll be wrong. Bits are defined by the semantics of their use.
 > >> Any equality or inequality between one bit and another, and in fact
 > >> whether they can be meaningfully compared at all, is found in those
 > >> semantics.
 > >> 
 > >> Bits ain't just bits. Bits are information *in context.* Change the
 > >> context, change the bits.
 > >> 
 > >> Regards,
 > >> Bill Herrin
 > >> 
 > >> 
 > >> -- 
 > >> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
 > >> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
 > >> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
 > > 

-- 
        -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*