Subject: Re: [Enum] RE: [voipeer] I-D: Publishing SIP Peering Policy

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 07:58:00 -0500

Folks,

Before deciding to spend company resources to register all possible carrier
services using ENUM and DNS 'as is', financial people may ask about a
technology risk assessment (think Google, Skype, etc.). In this context,
please look at the work aimed to replace the DNS by peer-to-peer NG Internet
name services (other startup tomorrow?):

The Cooperative Domain Service for example (CoDoNS):
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/egs/papers/codons-sigcomm.pdf 
See the reasons why and also the engineering approach for an alternative to
DNS. CoDoNS is backward compatible with the DNS, without having its
drawbacks, such as vulnerability, slow response for real time apps and
inconsistent caches. It breaks the monopoly of name space operators. It is
running on Planet Lab.

This is just a sample, it appears a lot of bright people are doing similar
work.

Naive question: What if a DNS equivalent to Skype will make its commercial
debut? Incentive: There seems to be a lot of money in names.

Make it illegal or replay the non-Net-Neutrality + QoS politics? 
Or just dismiss it as R&D as has been done with the Internet all along?

Thanks, Henry

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:55:05 +0100

> debut? Incentive: There seems to be a lot of money in names.

Actually that is a very strong disincentive for replacing the DNS.  
Why should everyone who has already made an investment into the  
current global, ubiquitous naming system abandon that for an unknown  
and unproven "something else"?

> Or just dismiss it as R&D as has been done with the Internet all  

If there are new ideas on how to do naming or make the DNS better,  
then they should of course be considered.
Most of the DNS people I've spoken to don't believe that distributed  
hash tables -- the idea behind the Cornell paper you quoted -- are a  
positive advance.

Every few years someone comes up with a technology that  claimes to  
supersede or displace the DNS: Yellow Pages/NIS, NDS, X.500, LDAP,  
etc, etc. Every time, these "better solutions" lose.  And meanwhile  
the DNS just quietly gets on with the job of answering billions of  
queries every hour so that the internet keeps workling.