North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain

  • From: Jim Popovitch
  • Date: Fri May 12 02:23:54 2006
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024;; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=IKXEALun9lZ9MnyRvcjYX+1/fugRSWG9DUf2pZTzRrMK0YvilFDhaxFl82Pgf3iwhBqdRVbzrN9og3kW6QKSryWxGJdccsDfoUwV4yohwJwTesEHlXOcPBQBIz9a3AeBtL45bKjxa2pBzzZ89BsoXDzCKCGYvzsTyqRD6vjoSY8= ;

Fred Baker wrote:
On May 11, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:

Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog
For the same reason DNS was created in the first place. You will recall that we actually HAD a hostname file that we traded around...
Let's not go backwards now.... ;-)

Note: I didn't advocate replacing DNS with host files. I'll attempt to clarify: If X number of DNS servers can server Y number of TLDs, why can't X number of completely re-designed DNS servers handle just root domain names without a TLD.


Why have a TLD when for most of the world:

www.cnn.CO.UK is forwarded to www.cnn.COM is forwarded to is forwarded to

etc., etc.

There are very few arguments that I've heard for even having TLDs in the first place. The most common one was "Businesses will use .COM, Networks will use .NET, Organizations and Garden Clubs will use .ORG". When in reality Businesses scoop up all the TLDs in their name/interest.

Why does it matter if your routers and switches are in DNS as vrs

I do understand that today's DNS system was designed with TLDs in mind, and probably couldn't just switch over night. But why can't a next-gen system be put in place that puts and right where they go now whether you use .net, .com, .org, or probably any other TLD?

-Jim P.