# Re: HTTP URL to support multiple naming services

Paul Rarey (Paul.Rarey@systems.dhl.com)
Wed, 1 Feb 1995 12:47:37 -0800

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Mic Bowman: "Re: HTTP URL to support multiple naming"
- Previous message: Keith Ball: "Re: HTTP URL to support multiple naming"

    From: Paul Rarey <Paul.Rarey@systems.dhl.com>

    Message-Id: <9502011247.ZM17455@maverick.systems.DHL.COM>

    Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 12:47:37 -0800

    In-Reply-To: "Jon P. Knight" <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>

    To: "Jon P. Knight" <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>

    Subject: Re: HTTP URL to support multiple naming services

On Feb 1, 10:49, Jon P. Knight wrote:
> Subject: Re: HTTP URL to support multiple naming services

[ Stuff Deleted ]

}Erm, I'm not so sure. I haven't tracked the development of IP:ng recently
}but at least at one point on the big-internet mailing list there was talk
}of having to re-write or at least recompile applications to make use of
}IP:ng natively. Don't forget that on UNIX boxes running BSD-derived code,
}there isn't a nice, clean, ``please open me a TCP connection to
}wibbly.wobbly.com''. You have to get your hands dirty with sockets using
}SOCK_STREAM or SOCK_DGRAM and that means that your code is littered with
}structures that have IP addresses in them. Maybe someone with
}their finger on the IP:ng pulse will say yea or nay on this?

Hhhmmm..... Yea.. the structure holding the IP address in the TCP socket code
may need to be updated to be larger or whatever. I would preceive this to be a
re-compile nothing more. This may not hold true for things like "ping" or
"traceroute" which engage IP directly.

}I would have thought that most of the on-the-wire protocols will be ok
}though. The only problems I can think of are if there are any protocols
}that specifically leave a space for an IPv4 (or IPX or whatever) address
}in their on-the-wire representations.

Yup

}My point was that if you will have to rewrite your code come IP:ng change
}over time (ie: tomorrow :-) ), you might as well do the decent thing and
}utilise a single namespace and resolution mechanism for your machines. Why
}would you need more than one? Maybe I'm missing something obvious here...

:-)

    --

    Cheers!

    [ psr ]

- Next message: Mic Bowman: "Re: HTTP URL to support multiple naming"
- Previous message: Keith Ball: "Re: HTTP URL to support multiple naming"