Mailing List Archive

Absolutely agree with both Robert and Vadim that DNS need to be revised
in a big way. I especially would like to see the MX record concept
applied to information services (IX maybe), i.e.


foo.bar.org. IN A 198.133.151.19
IX 10 fooU2.bar.org.
IX 20 foo2U2.bar.org.
IX 30 whoU2.maybe.com.
IX 40 tryMe2.friendly.com.

www.bar.org. IN CNAME foo.bar.org.


Has this simple concept been proposed in an IETF draft unknown to
us ugly ducklings :-)

Quack.

Tim

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tim Bass | #include<campfire.h> |
| Principal Network Systems Engineer | for(beer=100;beer>1;beer++){ |
| The Silk Road Group, Ltd. | take_one_down(); |
| | pass_it_around(); |
| http://www.silkroad.com/ | } |
| | back_to_work(); /*never reached */ |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+







--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tim Bass | #include<campfire.h> |
| Principal Network Systems Engineer | for(beer=100;beer>1;beer++){ |
| The Silk Road Group, Ltd. | take_one_down(); |
| | pass_it_around(); |
| http://www.silkroad.com/ | } |
| | back_to_work(); /*never reached */ |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: Tim Bass <bass@dune.silkroad.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 13:22:23 -0500 (EST)

... the MX record concept applied to information services
[Example removed]
Has this simple concept been proposed in an IETF draft unknown to
us ugly ducklings :-)

Yes. See draft-gulbrandsen-dns-rr-srvcs-01.txt at a repository near you.

-MAP

I don't know what this has to do with big-I or cidr but let's just
clear the urban legend.

It was a small community in Alabama that voted (for their town) to
allow PI to equal 3 for the purpose of calculating square footage
for property tax.

That's it. No grand scheme to defraud Southern schoolkids, no legislation
of ip_v !=4, just something to make taxes simple.

Ehud

>On Thu, 16 Nov 1995, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

>> They also passed a bill once to make PI 3 or some such, didn't they?

>In the state where this happened it was passed by their congress but was
>vetoed in their senate so it never became law.

>Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022
>Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-542-4130
>http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com

On Thu, 16 Nov 1995, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

> They also passed a bill once to make PI 3 or some such, didn't they?

In the state where this happened it was passed by their congress but was
vetoed in their senate so it never became law.

Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-542-4130
http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com

From: Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>
On Thu, 16 Nov 1995, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

> They also passed a bill once to make PI 3 or some such, didn't they?

In the state where this happened it was passed by their congress but was
vetoed in their senate so it never became law.

Florida. I'm not sure that it was vetoed, though, I'll have to check back.
(The premis of the argument put forth was a quote in the bible about a
certain oasis being 30 cubits around and 10 cubits across, so PId=c solve
for PI.)

Dave K. (rampant trivia maven)

> Absolutely agree with both Robert and Vadim that DNS need to be revised
> in a big way. I especially would like to see the MX record concept
> applied to information services (IX maybe), i.e. [...]

That's not a big revision. "Big" revisions usually entail wire protocol
changes. What you want is called a "SRV" record and it was submitted to
the RFC Editor for "extended last call" (befitting its experimental
status) about a week ago. An earlier version can be had from any Internet
Drafts repository as draft-gulbrandsen-dns-rr-srvcs-01.txt.

> Has this simple concept been proposed in an IETF draft unknown to
> us ugly ducklings :-)
>
> Quack.
>
> Tim

Tim, next time I'd like you to do three things differently:

(1) do your homework before posting widely
(2) post to big-internet or nanog but not both
(3) only include one copy of your .signature

Paul

Paul quips:

>
> Tim, next time I'd like you to do three things differently:
>
>

Only three? There are about double that amount I would like
to see you do differently, Paul. I just don't have the time
to always count the number of signatures nor worry when
others hit the group reply key in elm like you seem to.

How about I just leave the .sig off this one so you can enjoy
subtraction as well as addition :-) Also, we'll all be counting
on your adept observation skills to police all the lists people
post to in a thread. Why, being so adept, it does surprise me
a little you have missed the other 10,000 or so similar mistakes
by others recently.

< the rest deleted >

Tim

> From: Tim Bass (@NANOG-LIST) <nanog@dune.silkroad.com>
> Subject: Re: Routing wars pending?
> To: big-internet@munnari.oz.au
> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 23:39:20 -0500 (EST)
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> [...]
> Only three? There are about double that amount I would like
> to see you do differently, Paul. I just don't have the time
> to always count the number of signatures nor worry when
> others hit the group reply key in elm like you seem to.
> [...]

Personally, I would much prefer that you waste the time of some other
mail list with this sort of chatter...

-tjs