Subj : proposed new nodelist
To : Johannes Lundberg
From : Peter Knapper
Date : Sun Jul 21 2002 10:41 am
Hi Johannes,
JL> I thought a bit of this. Using sub-domains for services/transport-
JL> protocols work quite well? IE, to find out if host
JL> 2:206/149 has binkp-access, you simply resolve
JL> 'binkp.f149.n206.z2.fidonet.net'. And to list the
JL> services available, you do a zone transfer on
JL> f149.n206.z2.fidonet.net. Port specification could be
JL> solved with a record looking like 'p4001.binkp.f149...'.
Yes, I think using current DNS services in a manner similar to the above is a
perfectly viable way of getting Fidonet IP connectivity listed. The hard parts
are -
1. Getting everyone to agree on a common method of doing it within Fidonet,
(IE build the STANDARDS that Fidonet will use for DNS records),
2. Getting current code updated to use those standards.
JL> Changing the existing protocols, and having the proxy
JL> just saying 'He is actually at IP 193.13.9.98, port
JL> 4001' would work. But in that case, I think it would be
JL> better to skip using DNS, and having our own
JL> noderesolver-server instead, who's prodiving the
JL> correct information from the beginning.
Yes that is another way, however somewhere among all this we get back into the
age old argument within Fidonet members that using a single service to manage
such a task is putting all the eggs in one basket and taking the purpose for it
being a hobby out of the hands of the users. Hence why distributing the info
within DNS, rather than concentrating it in a few servers, makes good sense
from several perspectives.
Cheers..............pk.
--- Maximus/2 3.01
# Origin: Another Good Point About OS/2 (3:772/1.10)
* Origin: Baddog BBS (1:218/903)
