[2610] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAVYJOBS.COM
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vadim Antonov)
Mon Apr 22 18:49:52 1996
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:45:23 +0800
From: avg@postman.ncube.com (Vadim Antonov)
To: john@interport.net, smd@icp.net
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Why not to restrict first-level domains to companies
which can demonstrate that they have 1000+ hosts?
Companies with 200+ hosts then should use .A.COM -- .Z.COM
(i know, some of them are taken, but that can be fixed).
Smaller companies should use .xx.COM (and xx is NOT choosen
by the companies -- it is just the random seed and/or
registry ID).
What we should worry about is number of first-level
domains/number of hosts ratio. It is the same problem
as with routing. The solution is also the same --
aggregation, with subsequent Toxic Waste Dump (aka
legacy allocation) cleanup.
That kind of defeats the "menmonic" value of names but
still beats telephone numbers (and then, what kind of
mnemonic can be used to distinguish between thousands of
nearly identical small businesses?)
--vadim
PS. Obviously if IBM registers 100 domain names it is
still a lot less damage than a small ISP (with 1000 dial-up
customers) which registers a domain name for every such
customer. Big folks registering POISONOUS-BURGER.COM and
SHIT-ON-TV.COM aren't really a problem. Zillion of
MOM-AND-POP.COMs is.
