Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
mcr> I don't think that we can really give out 7B short callsigns though.
I want to repeat this: I don't think that there everyone can have a short callsign.
At 5-bits per (english) glyph (because ALICE == Alice == alice), we need 8
glyphs to get 2^40 callsigns. And that assumes that we hand out meaningless
strings.
While a couple of billion people would prefer non-english callsigns, I don't
think that helps us much since random sequences of Mandarin or Kanji probably
don't help.
Yeah, a series of pooh emoji will be a sought after callsign, I just don't
think we want to repeat twitter/facebook/etc. handle land grab.
> callsign @phb because I might want to sell the house. So I am going to have
> @lawnswood_chester, @dalek_hq_boston, @minons_truro, etc. That way I
You just built some hierarchy into your handles.
(Why are minions in Truro? I dunno)
> Back in the mists of time Google spent a lot of time/effort collecting
> digital copies of every book in creation. I am sure they would be more than
> happy to serve up the text if it was easy for them to do.
I can't really see a connection here.
>> We need this really allocated, because then it fits immediately into
>> ip6.arpa.
>> Yeah, it's long hard to remember prefix. We already have a variety of ways
>> to put 128-bit AAAA in forward places. We might need some new RR types so
>> that we
>> can do relative naming, or we could just use AAAA records.
>> So "Michael's IETF-Friend-PHB" would be implemented by having
>> "IETF-Friend-PHB IN AAAA" contain your AAAA value in my tree.
>>
> Oh nice, now I get it...
One would put "fd01:1234::abcd me" into the virtual equivalent of /etc/hosts
Then, when I write "IETF-Friend-PHB" (which is implicitely, "me's
IETF-Friend-PHB"), it would lookup:
IETF-Friend-PHB.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.4.3.2.1.1.0.d.f.ip6.arpa
(which I hope is reverse of fd01:1234::/64)
and, finding a AAAA record, would then know where your tree is.
There is an issue of public vs private vs limited group results to deal with.
NSEC3
> That is the sort of thing I am thinking of as well. But with access controls
> Alice Plutocrat probably doesn't want everyone knowing where the bits go.
> The public delegation can get people to an authoritative but they will need
> authorization to get any response out of it.
+1
We really don't need any IETF Action.
We don't have to run this in ULA-Central. Any /32 to /56 allocation will
work to start with. Once successful (ly debugged!) DNAME will let us move
everyone to another prefix if necessary.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
