Re: Routers and DNS
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Routers and DNS
- From: email@example.com (Steve Sampson)
- Date: Sun, 1 Jan 1995 20:37:43 -0600 (CST)
> Look, I don't mean to be rude, but you have got a fundamental misconception of
> how TCP/IP works.
You hit the nail on the head. When I first hooked on to the internet with a
synchronous modem to a router, I didn't know how to start up the DNS, so I
just typed IP addresses. Later I found that I could put my favorite places
into /etc/hosts. Everyone started adding names, and we didn't have to
remember IP addresses anymore. Then some idiot changed routers and didn't
tell us, so we had to figure out his IP address again (telephone). Later
a person got tired of this and started up the DNS. It's nice when it works,
but try doing a netstat when the net is down. At least without the DNS the
response was quick :-) But, just as advertised, the user no longer had to
be concerned with IP addresses. Which brings confusion, because only
administrators have deep knowledge anymore, and the users are holding some
pretty bizarre concepts. Ask a women how TV remote control works, and you'll
get as intelligent an answer. Oops, that appears to be sexist, oh well...
I still can't figure out why we don't use Ethernet addresses and routers with
huge tables for Artificial Intelligence routing. Some of the military stuff
I worked with could sniff out a communist, so why can't a router sniff out a
I figure 5 or 10 of these at the big nodes in the U.S. would suffice...
Say 100 XT's in a garage...
Let's see now - I encapsulate my data in AX.25, then in IP, then in ROSE,
then in Ethernet, then in ATM, etc, etc...
So do I need to encapsulate my data in DNS? - Just kidding...
I think your use of traceroute graphically shows exactly your point, and
the text surrounding it amplifies the point. Any person left with another
view has, they say, come to the table not wanting to be confused by facts.