North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
> > But there's no technical advantage of a hierarchical system over a > > simple hashing scheme, they're basically isomorphic other than a hash > > system can more easily be tuned to a particular distribution goal. > > Amazing how many experienced people seem to be saying this isn't possible, > given there are already schemes out there using flat namespaces for large > problems (e.g. Skype, freenet, various file sharing systems). Most of these > are also far more dynamic than the DNS in nature, and most have no management > overhead with them, you run the software and the namespace "just works". According to your description, this is a hierarchical naming system. At the top level you have Skype, freenet, etc. defining separate namespaces. Because DNS was intended to be a universal naming system, it had to incorporate the hierarchy into the system. > However I think the pain in DNS for most people is the hierarchy, but the > diverse registration systems. i.e. It isn't that it is delegated, it is that > delegates all "do their own thing". Seems to me that this is part of the definition of "delegate". Some would say that this makes for a more robust system than a monolithic hierarchy where everyone has to toe the party line. > I've always pondered doing a flat, simple part of the DNS, or even > an overlay, > but of course it needs a business model of sorts. It has been tried at least twice and failed. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05/13/realnames_goes_titsup_com/ http://www.idcommons.net --Michael Dillon
|