blarson@dianne.usc.edu (bob larson) (11/24/89)
In article <1989Nov22.184823.28878@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> dennis@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Dennis Ferguson) writes: >"UTORVM1" is an NJE network level >address, it is used by the networking software on bitnet machines for >routing purposes. Its nearest functional analogue (and a pretty good >match in terms of function, at that) for hosts on an IP network would >be something like 128.100.63.2.INTERNET. I think the reason the NIC >won't register .BITNET (and shouldn't register CREN.ORG or CREN.NET to >be used for the same purpose) is about the same reason they don't register >a .INTERNET domain with the usage above. But they DO register such things! Actuallty, it would be 2.63.100.128.IN-ADDR.ARPA, and they are registered so that IP numbers can be translated into domain names. The numbers are backwards so domian registration can be deligatedin the proper manner. (Queries about the 125.128.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain will be handled by USC's nameservers.) If there was such a need for bitnet addresses, I don't think the NIC would object to having it set up. The facts that many internet users don't know such things exist is a credit to the designers and implimentors. Bob Larson blarson@dianne.usc.edu usc!dianne!blarson --** To join Prime computer mailing list **--- info-prime-request@ais1.usc.edu usc!ais1!info-prime-request
dennis@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Dennis Ferguson) (11/24/89)
I wrote: >"UTORVM1" is an NJE network level >address, it is used by the networking software on bitnet machines for >routing purposes. Its nearest functional analogue (and a pretty good >match in terms of function, at that) for hosts on an IP network would >be something like 128.100.63.2.INTERNET. I think the reason the NIC >won't register .BITNET (and shouldn't register CREN.ORG or CREN.NET to >be used for the same purpose) is about the same reason they don't register >a .INTERNET domain with the usage above. blarson@dianne.usc.edu (bob larson) wrote: > But they DO register such things! Actuallty, it would be > 2.63.100.128.IN-ADDR.ARPA, and they are registered so that IP numbers > can be translated into domain names. ... > The facts that many > internet users don't know such things exist is a credit to the > designers and implimentors. :-) I really was sort of aware such things existed. The workstation I am typing this into (under my desk) is authoritative for 100.128.in-addr.arpa and has files with lots and lots of entries like that. I also like to run traceroute, sometimes look at logs of people who have logged into my machines and where they logged in from, and do similar things where this data is used. You miss the point (or I didn't explain it well enough), I think. Those records exist for no reason other than to allow users on Internet machines to never have to look at a network address like 128.100.63.2 (bet you can't send mail to 2.63.100.128.in-addr.arpa no matter what you do). Whenever an address from the network needs to be displayed, the applications turn it back into a name for humans to look at. Your average user on the machine whose IP network address is 128.100.63.2 can get by without ever seeing, and certainly never typing 128.100.63.2. Humans refer to hosts by name, not by irrelevant, hard-to-remember and likely-to-change things like network addresses. Now, if the applications on my Internet-attached hosts go to such lengths to prevent me from even seeing, let alone typing, IP network addresses, and if the domain name service was designed explicitly to support the hiding of such addresses from users, does it make any sense at all to turn around and put NJE network addresses in there? Particularly since the purpose of doing so is to permit me to have the extreme displeasure of typing said NJE network addresses to send people on BITNET machines mail? If this were allowed would BITNET return the favour by demanding that its users type 2.63.100.128.in-addr.arpa when mailing to me? Bitnet should keep its NJE network addresses to itself, just as the Internet tries hard to keep the necessity of dealing IP network addresses not only from Bitnet users but even from Internet users. Let's name our hosts, no matter what network they are on, and be done with it. Dennis
flinton@eagle.wesleyan.edu (11/27/89)
In article <1989Nov23.231811.6598@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>, dennis@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Dennis Ferguson) writes: > > ... Your average user on the > machine whose IP network address is 128.100.63.2 can get by without ever > seeing, and certainly never typing 128.100.63.2. Humans refer to hosts > by name, not by irrelevant, hard-to-remember and likely-to-change things > like network addresses. > Well, yes, in the best of all possible worlds. In the present world, up until this past fall, if I wanted to TELNET (or FTP) to my inria account, TELNET inria.inria.fr would splutter an error message (host unknown, or the like) but TELNET 128.93.xx.yy (yup, hard to remember!) would work. Now that our site tables are up to date, I can afford to forget that IP address -- except when our site tables break, as they do on occasion -- (sigh!). Irrelevant, hard to remember? Yes. But occasionally indispensible, as well.