Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 209
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, November 18 1998 Volume 01 : Number 209
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Re: Is Netscape filtering sites?
Re: [netz] Re: Is Netscape filtering sites?
[netz] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
[netz] Re: Is Netscape filtering sites?
Re: [netz] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
Re: [netz] Re: Is Netscape filtering sites?
[netz] Re: Is Netscape filtering sites?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Nov 1998 12:09:09 +0100
From: Carsten Laekamp <lakamp@capway.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Is Netscape filtering sites?
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) writes:
> So, I say, eliminate the shortage. ICANN registers the IP numbers, DNS
> points each number to a CBS *menu page*, where each P who wants the
> name can chip in (proportional to its net-profits ;-?) to keep the
> host up, and each C can look over a very finite list of links, choose
> Candian Bull Shine over Coholumbia Broadcasting Service, etc., and go
> on from there. So what if the DNS lookup is not a one-to-one map? Who
> cares?
Hmmm... this isn't taking into account the shortage of IP
numbers. Since that system needs to be reorganised, it would seem
sensible to reorganize the name system too. The first thing would be
to get rid of .com, .edu, etc..., domains, which don't have any real
justification in an international Internet anyway. Introducing
sub-domains like the British or Japanese *.co.*, *.ac.* would then
increase the number of possibilities. And this could be repeated
several times in the future, when there is a need for it. i.e. you
could have a *.e-com.com.us for e-commerce, a *.pa-local.com.us (or
even pa.local.com.us) for local businesses in Pa, and so on.
The main problem I see with the menu system is that it will only
introduce *sort of* another "local" DNS, which will be
further away (physically) from the "final" host than in most cases
today, thus increasing connection failures.
- --
Carsten Läkamp
claekamp@mindless.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:57:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Is Netscape filtering sites?
In article <19981118030550.AAE7747@LOCALNAME> Kerry Miller wrote:
> My 'people' are the surfers, trying to find www.cbs.com; your people are
>looking for a place to register their sites -- let's call em Consumers and
>Producers. OK, Consumer couldn't care less how the net works or where
>the registry is kept, while Producer thinks its an advantage to have CBS
>associated with his operation. I submit that the prevailing notions that
>a) C *wants* to go directly to the site selected, and
>b) P *needs* a unique URL
>are simply *assumptions* of how the net 'ought' to work.
These assumptions have been around for far longer than the DNS
controversy; they basically date back to the origins of the ARPAnet
itself. Certain hosts are associated with specific resources
(e.g. the RFC archives at ISI), and it is convenient for people to use
a well-known name (today, www.isi.edu or ftp.isi.edu) to access those
resources.
>There is nothing in the protocols that supports either one - and in
>fact, they are only two sides of the same premise -- that there will
>always be enough names to go around -- that has created an artificial
>shortage in name-space. This is what is driving the trademark issue,
>which itself is cited in the White Paper as the *first* reason why
>the DNS should be privatized.
This is an area in which I disagree with the White Paper. There is no
name shortage. I think each component of a DNS name can be 64
characters, so within a particular domain, you have at least 26**64
possibilities.
There *is* a shortage in "attractive" names -- short, easily
remembered names, and the names that have already been established as
brands, companies, or products. However, in the old days, when an
"attractive" name was in use, someone would just choose another name.
>So, I say, eliminate the shortage. ICANN registers the IP numbers, DNS
>points each number to a CBS *menu page*, where each P who wants the
>name can chip in (proportional to its net-profits ;-?) to keep the
>host up, and each C can look over a very finite list of links, choose
>Candian Bull Shine over Coholumbia Broadcasting Service, etc., and go
>on from there. So what if the DNS lookup is not a one-to-one map?
>Who cares?
This model does not scale for a variety of reasons:
* This basically makes domain names into registries for companies.
That puts a huge burden on the people who maintain the "menu" sites
(these registries) to keep the IP addresses of these companies
consistent. As the Internet grows, this becomes unmanageable, for
similar reasons as why static host tables were unmanageable.
* The DNS lookup can often *not* be a one-to-one map. Many sites map
their name onto a set of IP addresses, for redundancy and backup
purposes. You'd have to make the "menu" very complicated in order
to keep up with all these mappings.
* Other aspects of the DNS, such as resolution of email addresses to
MX records, need to be worked into this model.
* This adds a extra level of indirection into name resolution. If the
site holding the menu is down, you are out of luck until it comes
back up. Very popular sites would have to run redundant "menu"
servers, which would have implications as far as keeping their links
consistent as the number of sites that want to register there grows.
There are other problems. In general, the standard DNS system handles
a lot of this under the covers. It also localizes registration within
the registering organization itself.
> (1) Basically, as far as I can see, I'm only reinventing the
> .net domain;
> (2) to dispatch C in the right direction, the menu host
> should have its own IP lookup table, so it doesnt get referred
> back to itself, but is that an awful chore?
Yes, for reasons I explained above.
> (3) How many www.cbs.com's are there likely to be? Good
> question, and I'll be happy to think about the *politics of it
> further, if the hardware is sound.
This is sort of like asking "how many www.yahoo.com's are there likely
to be." As something becomes popular, people want access to it.
>Perhaps [the Internet has] been growing because certain fundamental
>limitations have been ignored.
The Internet was seeing exponential growth even before privatization.
The needs for new IP address space were recognized long ago. The
needs for new TLDs were not considered until the past few years, but
that was because of what I said before, that before all the lawsuits,
people used a different name if the one they wanted was already in
use.
>The single host table solved one problem, but the name feeding frenzy
>is a worse one, imo. If the net is so great at facilitating
>communications, maybe its time to see if it can keep distributed
>tables together.
The name feeding frenzy is due to the fact that business names have
high recognizability, and therefore economic value in a business
context. If people were willing to register under non-popular names,
it would not be an issue.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:42:22 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
Greg,
> Like I've been saying all along, the DNS does not have influence over
> anyone. It is the way the DNS has been operated for the past few
> years, which saw the rapid transition of the Internet from a
> newly-emerging commercial medium to a mass medium, that has created
> the conditions that make it seem as if it has influence over people.
> In fact, used with the original intent of its developers, all these
> name conflicts would be moot.
>
In your opinion, how do the proposed bylaws fit with the original intent(s) of
the developers? I think Ronda has demonstrated pretty clearly that ICANN
pro-tem could care less about history; it's trying to deal with what the net is
now -- which, as long as it *seems* to have power and influence, doubtless
means it will exercise it. The key to modernity is that appearance is all.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:42:23 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Is Netscape filtering sites?
Carsten,
> Hmmm... this isn't taking into account the shortage of IP
> numbers. Since that system needs to be reorganised, it would seem
> sensible to reorganize the name system too.
Isn't IP *expansion* sufficient, if 12 digits is not enough? It looks to me as
though the practical way to do that is to start down the 'devolution' path, with
distributed or partial servers, and or 'local' lookup tables.
> The first thing would be
> to get rid of .com, .edu, etc..., domains, which don't have any real
> justification in an international Internet anyway. Introducing
> sub-domains like the British or Japanese *.co.*, *.ac.* would then
> increase the number of possibilities.
Those TLDs are simply one way of divvying up the implicit .us domain. Even
in 1986 or whenever, it was obvious that a grad student wasnt going to be
able to catalog every last Stateside URL. Postel's problem then is our
problem now, with a decade of neglect/ inertia/ oppportunism on top.
Btw, it is interesting to read (I forget which RFC - 1040?) Postel's intentions
for the explicit .us: strictly governmental and quasigovernmental agencies
such as fire departments and K-12 schools. (To date, there are fewer than 20
000 registrants in that domain. Niue has more than that!)
> And this could be repeated
> several times in the future, when there is a need for it. i.e. you
> could have a *.e-com.com.us for e-commerce, a *.pa-local.com.us (or
> even pa.local.com.us) for local businesses in Pa, and so on.
>
This is the crux: can the net be 'efficient' with wildcards? JP didnt (and GS
doesnt) think so - but JP didnt forsee the rampant commercial takeover, and
GS, with the takeover upon us, has yet to enunciate an alternative.
> The main problem I see with the menu system is that it will only
> introduce *sort of* another "local" DNS, which will be
> further away (physically) from the "final" host than in most cases
> today, thus increasing connection failures.
>
Physical schmysical ;-) it'll simply look like one more hop to a trace router.
a) its not a local DNS, because *names are not looked up, only IPs;
b) nothing whatsoever stops a user from plugging in the IP number from the
get-go -- then or now.
The DNS was put together as a *convenience to users*. What has happened
over the past 10 or 15 years is that modern commerce has determined to
claim the right to define that convenience, and therefore wants a DNS which
is convenient to *it*.
Cheers,
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:56:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
In article <19981118194537.AAF17168@LOCALNAME> Kerry Miller wrote:
>In your opinion, how do the proposed bylaws fit with the original
>intent(s) of the developers? I think Ronda has demonstrated pretty
>clearly that ICANN pro-tem could care less about history; it's trying
>to deal with what the net is now -- which, as long as it *seems* to
>have power and influence, doubtless means it will exercise it. The
>key to modernity is that appearance is all.
I didn't read anything in the bylaws that suggested the ICANN would
attempt to directly control the DNS, or that they wanted to profit
from such control. I suppose that being in a position of
policy-making power, that gives the impression that they could (or
would) take control, or that some "deserving entities" might lose
rights they would otherwise have under some other organizational
structure.
I don't think the ICANN don't care about the past history. I think
most of them (except perhaps Mike Roberts) don't know a lot about it,
which also lowers their credibility in the eyes of people who've been
involved with the Internet for many years. But this is a dilemma,
because people who've been involved with the Internet for many years
would not necessarily be viewed by the Internet public at large as
being neutral. For example, someone on the ICANN board might have
invested in NSI, or Cisco, or some other Internet product or service
company. It's a good investment, as part of a general plan for
providing for oneself (and one's family). But this could be
considered a conflict of interest. It's very difficult to find people
who:
* know a lot about the Internet
* do not stand to profit from this knowledge
* can be unbiased and impartial when it comes to resolving critical
issues
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 18:26:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Is Netscape filtering sites?
In article <19981118194537.AAD17168@LOCALNAME> Kerry Miller wrote:
>Isn't IP *expansion* sufficient, if 12 digits is not enough? It looks
>to me as though the practical way to do that is to start down the
>'devolution' path, with distributed or partial servers, and or
>'local' lookup tables.
In a sense, one's local DNS cache is a partial server and local lookup
table, as it does not contain the full complement of DNS mappings.
IP expansion doesn't really come into play here. It's primarily an
issue of the convenience of using mnemonic names for network
resources, and the fact that the mapping from mnemonic name to network
resource is not guaranteed to be static.
>Those TLDs are simply one way of divvying up the implicit .us domain. Even
>in 1986 or whenever, it was obvious that a grad student wasnt going to be
>able to catalog every last Stateside URL. Postel's problem then is our
>problem now, with a decade of neglect/ inertia/ oppportunism on top.
I don't see it that way. The Internet grew up very quickly.
Decisions were made because it was considered important to keep the
infrastructure going, as many people had come to depend on it. I
think, as Dave Farber has pointed out, that honest mistakes were
made.
>This is the crux: can the net be 'efficient' with wildcards? JP didnt
>(and GS doesnt) think so - but JP didnt forsee the rampant
>commercial takeover, and GS, with the takeover upon us, has yet to
>enunciate an alternative.
I don't think anyone foresaw the rampant commercial takeover. You
have to keep in mind that the Internet was designed as part of an
open-ended research project.
I don't really have any alternatives, if by "GS" you're referring to
me. These are complex problems that I think will take years to
solve.
>> The main problem I see with the menu system is that it will only
>> introduce *sort of* another "local" DNS, which will be
>> further away (physically) from the "final" host than in most cases
>> today, thus increasing connection failures.
> Physical schmysical ;-) it'll simply look like one more hop to a
> trace router.
No, not really, because it is not just another "hop" in IP routing;
it's an additional reference at the application level.
>a) its not a local DNS, because *names are not looked up, only IPs;
>b) nothing whatsoever stops a user from plugging in the IP number from the
>get-go -- then or now.
It's unwise to rely on IP addresses being fixed. One could argue
that it's unwise for DNS names to be fixed as well, I suppose, but at
some point you have to have some name that is at least assumed to be
fixed for the time period you want to use the resources associated
with that name. Thus, there is always going to be a need for some
mapping from a high-level name to a network resource, whether that
name is a DNS name, a Real Names object, etc.
>The DNS was put together as a *convenience to users*. What has happened
>over the past 10 or 15 years is that modern commerce has determined to
>claim the right to define that convenience, and therefore wants a DNS which
>is convenient to *it*.
Well, it was developed not just as a convenience to users, but a
convenience to people who are responsible for managing portions of the
Internet name and address space. The unfortunate (IMHO) aspect of the
privatization is the great rush to adopt a solution that has a lot of
questionable long-term implications.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 00:35:34 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Is Netscape filtering sites?
Greg,
> >a) C *wants* to go directly to the site selected, and
> >b) P *needs* a unique URL
> >are simply *assumptions* of how the net 'ought' to work.
>
> These assumptions have been around for far longer than the DNS
> controversy; they basically date back to the origins of the ARPAnet
> itself. Certain hosts are associated with specific resources
> (e.g. the RFC archives at ISI), and it is convenient for people to use
> a well-known name (today, www.isi.edu or ftp.isi.edu) to access those
> resources.
>
Revising the assumptions does not reduce access: each and every site
remains *directly* accessible by IP number.
> There *is* a shortage in "attractive" names -- short, easily
> remembered names, and the names that have already been established as
> brands, companies, or products. However, in the old days, when an
> "attractive" name was in use, someone would just choose another name.
>
>From the beginning of browserdom, the 'bookmark file' has been an integral
part of net navigation: how often do you, yourself, *remember* a URL and
type it in, compared to _looking it up_?
> > So what if the DNS lookup is not a one-to-one map?
> >Who cares?
>
> This model does not scale for a variety of reasons:
>
> * This basically makes domain names into registries for companies.
Why do you say so? Registration can be as centralized as is practical.
> As the Internet grows, this becomes unmanageable, for
> similar reasons as why static host tables were unmanageable.
>
We may be looking at an era of *continual unmanageability* -- is there
anything in the emerging information economy to suggest that it will settle
down? In any case, as you have said yourself, host tables were not
unmanageable, merely* inconvenient*.
> * The DNS lookup can often *not* be a one-to-one map. Many sites map
> their name onto a set of IP addresses, for redundancy and backup
> purposes. You'd have to make the "menu" very complicated in order
> to keep up with all these mappings.
>
Sure enough, you've driven a spike right through the heart of the proposal!
Golly gee, many sites may find it more convenient to register *different
names, just as they used to do with phone numbers! And you know how
utterly, excruciatingly inconvenient it was, when one line was busy, to have
to dial another one that might be as many as two digits different!
> * Other aspects of the DNS, such as resolution of email addresses to
> MX records, need to be worked into this model.
>
Can you tell me more about MX? I never heard of it, outside of Punta de
Playa.
> * This adds a extra level of indirection into name resolution. If the
> site holding the menu is down, you are out of luck until it comes
> back up. Very popular sites would have to run redundant "menu"
> servers, which would have implications as far as keeping their links
> consistent as the number of sites that want to register there grows.
>
Again, can't we keep number problems separate from name problems?
Frankly, I do not see why a menu site should become 'popular'; wouldn't you
rather have a name shared by *fewer* parties than be tagged at the bottom of
a long list?**
> There are other problems. In general, the standard DNS system handles
> a lot of this under the covers. It also localizes registration within
> the registering organization itself.
Isnt it interesting that the fundamental conceptuial problem in all of this has
to do with the knot that binds all the distributed net-links together? That
organizationally speaking, this fantastic *net* doesnt begin to compare with
the electricity transmission grid, or even your city water supply reticulation?
>
> The name feeding frenzy is due to the fact that business names have
> high recognizability, and therefore economic value in a business
> context. If people were willing to register under non-popular names,
> it would not be an issue.
>
100% correct. Now it only remains to be explained what in the everloving
packetized world popularity has to do with the *operation* of a virtual
communications system.
kerry
** Since alphabetization is moot (they're all www.cbs.com, remember),
obviously menu entries will build by a first-come, first-listed basis. And as
everybody knows, consumers find it remarkably inconvenient to look beyond
the first page of any list of hits.
It is also worth asking whether site names are half as important to net users
as we've been assuming they are. The use of search engines -- unheard of 5
years ago -- is continually increasing, and I'm fairly sure they don't pop
across to some name server to find out where to go.
|{hm
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #209
******************************
