bernstei@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Dan Bernstein) (10/19/89)
As a pilot project, we are going to make available to the Internet a hosts table. Please note that this project is not an official project of The Ohio State University. Sites with reliable name server access should not need this table. To reduce network load we plan to distribute the table in stages. If you administer an FTP site or would like to help distribute the table in other ways, type ``telnet 128.146.1.5 5555'' and fill out the questionnaire. We hope to organize distribution within a week and prepare the FTP sites in a few days. The hosts table is compiled from public information only, by automatic methods; approximately 96% of its information was culled from the Domain Name Server system. For the moment we will not accept changes, additions, or corrections to the table. The hosts table will remain reasonably static. As of October 18, the table contains over one hundred thousand Internet addresses and host domain names. It uses several megabytes of disk space. The Internet is estimated to have between 120,000 and 150,000 hosts, so the table is reasonably complete. However, we do not guarantee accuracy, reliability, or completeness. Mail any lengthy comments to this address. If you complain about the operation of the table, make sure to suggest something better. ---Dan Bernstein, brnstnd@acf10.nyu.edu, bernstei@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu
CERF@A.ISI.EDU (10/22/89)
Folks, with my IAB hat on, I STRONGLY endorse every effort to move to a Domain Name System basis as soon as possible. As we begin to introduce connections to outside email systems like CompuServe, Telemail, MCI Mail, etc. and introduce X.400 facilities, we are going to need DNS more than ever. If I thought there was a way to enforce it, I'd vote for a ban on use of host tables after July 4, 1990 (Independence Day!). Vint Cerf
bernstei@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Dan Bernstein) (10/22/89)
In article <[A.ISI.EDU]21-Oct-89.15:24:28.CERF> CERF@A.ISI.EDU (Vint Cerf) writes: > I STRONGLY endorse every effort to move > to a Domain Name System basis as soon as possible. We also encourage all sites to move to a distributed database if possible. Our hosts table is aimed at sites that do not have reliable DNS access. ---Dan Bernstein, bernstei@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu
medin@NSIPO.ARC.NASA.GOV ("Milo S. Medin", NASA ARC NSI Project Office) (10/22/89)
This doesn't make sense. Let's say you go out and map out the whole Internet DNS space by walking the tree (let's ignore the problem of servers who refuse zone XFER requests for now). You may have the equivalent of all the A records in the DNS, but you have missed out on all the MX records out there that many domains depend upon for proper mail transfer. As an example, you can send mail to user@host.span.nasa.gov, and that points to an Internet<->DECNET mail relay. There are oodles of hosts that are serviced by this relay, and the DNS doesn't know anything about those DECNET machines out there, so you can't get that information. There are also many sites who have MX records that point to a mail relay machine for local internal distribution. Even for hosts that are Internet capable, but may not have advanced or properly configured mailers. In this case, you'll try and deliver directly rather than go through the relay like a DNS capable system would have. The DNS does more than just hosttable functionality. People even use this functionality! If the host doesn't support DNS functionality, don't attempt to use it as a general purpose Internet host. Certainly, don't attempt to mail from it! Most major hardware vendors support the DNS. I can't think of any that have no support. Even the PC's and Mac's support it. Just exactly what systems out there are you trying to build this for? DNS support is required, not just recommended. Building in resolver support is trivial if you have UDP support. You can use some nameserver out there on a real machine if you can't run one yourself. This seems like a very bad idea, not just because it goes against current good practices, but that people may actually think they can get by with this, because the tables puportedly have all the hosts in them. We have enough problems to debug in the Internet already. We don't need needless ones. Thanks, Milo
rick@UUNET.UU.NET (Rick Adams) (10/22/89)
If I thought there was a way to enforce it, I'd vote for a ban on use of host tables after July 4, 1990 (Independence Day!). Get DCA (or whoever) to have the NIC stop providing hosts.txt and you'll make a hell of an impact.
phil@BRL.MIL (Phil Dykstra) (10/23/89)
I used to joke that the Domain Name System was simply a way of replacing an ever increasingly large disk file with an ever increasingly large chunk of memory (named). But seriously, the DNS is a necessary move to keep up with the exponential growth of the InterNet. Hosts that don't run it are starting to lose more and more all the time. However, keeping some version of a host table around, if only for user information, is a good thing. Sort of like the postscript debate, I can't "grep" on the DNS, and I can't even count the number of times the DNS failed but I could still get through by looking up and typing in dotted quads. At BRL we run a script every night that converts our own domain tables, along with hosts.txt, into /etc/hosts form for internal distribution. When network problems arise and you want to traceroute or ping, that table is indispensable. - Phil <phil@brl.mil>
stev@VAX.FTP.COM (Stev Knowles) (10/24/89)
*In article <[A.ISI.EDU]21-Oct-89.15:24:28.CERF>
*CERF@A.ISI.EDU (Vint Cerf) writes:
*> I STRONGLY endorse every effort to move
*> to a Domain Name System basis as soon as possible.
*
*We also encourage all sites to move to a distributed database if possible.
*Our hosts table is aimed at sites that do not have reliable DNS access.
*
*---Dan Bernstein, bernstei@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu
*
*
you would be better off expending effort to fix the problem rather
than kludging a symptom. if you cannot get *anything* better, you
*can* run BIND on a dedicated PC.
stev knowles
stev@ftp.com
617-246-0900news@bbn.COM (News system owner ID) (10/25/89)
bernstei@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
< We also encourage all sites to move to a distributed database if possible.
< Our hosts table is aimed at sites that do not have reliable DNS access.
<
< ---Dan Bernstein, bernstei@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu
As a service to the SOA of Ohio-State.edu (among others), I feel
obliged to point out that the "we" in this series of statements is the
_Royal_ "We", rather than one indicating any offical part of the Ohio
State University.
The people in charge there really do understand why this is, in
general, a Bad Thing.
In other words:
g/We/s//I/g
g/Our/s//My/g
Now, if someone wants to do something more useful, one could make the
tools for collecting and verifying such a host table, so that those
without DNS service could "fake it" in some quasi-reasonable way...
-- Paul Placeway <pplaceway@bbn.com>
formerly at cis.ohio-state.edu, speaking as an
alumnus (i.e. _not_ for BBN)brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (10/28/89)
So that nobody is misled by Mr. Placeway's comments, *I* will point out that *we* are a small group, consisting of a few data communications experts, several programmers, and me. It should be patently obvious why we will go to some lengths to preserve anonymity. One member would even lose professional status if he were known to have contributed ideas to our projects. As I am the organizer and (so far) prime mover of this group, and as I'm relatively flame-resistant, I am the natural choice for spokesperson; but for safety, the rest don't even know each other's names. As for Mr. Placeway's article: > As a service to the SOA of Ohio-State.edu (among others), I feel > obliged to point out that the "we" in this series of statements is the > _Royal_ "We", rather than one indicating any offical part of the Ohio > State University. I don't understand how Mr. Placeway could have missed our disclaimer at the top of each announcement: ``This project is not an official project of The Ohio State University.'' Most people read the second sentence of an article before responding to it. > The people in charge there really do understand why this is, in > general, a Bad Thing. Perhaps so; the only ``merit'' comment that OSU IRCC has made is that they feel that the user list could be a valuable service. But whatever your alma mater thinks: how about the hundreds of users (plus however many more at various anonymous ftp sites) who've picked up the user list? How about the several articles of support in c.p.tcp-ip and in c.p.tcp-ip.domains giving reasons that it is a Good Thing? And, Mr. Placeway, how would you respond to the letter I received from CERT (you have heard of CERT, I hope) asking for a copy of our hosts table? > In other words: > g/We/s//I/g > g/Our/s//My/g I suppose, Mr. Placeway, that just because the only name on the Internet Crucible is Geoff Goodfellow's, you assume that it was solely written by him in his spare time. (Maybe it was---but I'm not going to run off and post an uninformed article making such an accusation.) ---Dan Bernstein
CERF@A.ISI.EDU (10/29/89)
Dan, tell me more about sites which do not have reliable DNS access - I'd like to pursue fixing the access problem. Vint
CERF@A.ISI.EDU (10/29/89)
Rick, No that's an interesting suggestion (getting DCA to stop supporting hosts.txt table). I imagine a number of mailers would stop functioning adequately (if one can say they function adequately even now, if they depend on the hosts.txt table). Perhaps we should try to take a poll to find out who would object to such a course of action? Vint
mckenney@aai8.itstd.sri.com.uucp (Paul E. McKenney) (11/14/89)
In article <1989Nov6.154134.16530@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> dennis@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Dennis Ferguson) writes: >I can think of two reasons [for a host table] with some merit: [ . . . two reasons omitted . . . ] A third reason is to allow people to analyze the distributions of hostnames and internet addresses. Thanx, Paul