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)

.