Browse Prior Art Database

Internet name domains (RFC0799)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000003848D
Original Publication Date: 1981-Sep-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-13
Document File: 5 page(s) / 14K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

D.L. Mills: AUTHOR

Abstract

In the long run, it will not be practicable for every internet host to include all internet hosts in its name-address tables. Even now, with over four hundred names and nicknames in the combined ARPANET-DCNET tables, this has become awkward. Some sort of hierarchical name-space partitioning can easily be devised to deal with this problem; however, it has been wickedly difficult to find one compatible with the known mail systems throughout the community. The one proposed here is the product of several discussions and meetings and is believed both compatible with existing systems and extensible for future systems involving thousands of hosts.

This text was extracted from a ASCII document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 20% of the total text.

Network Working Group D. L. Mills

Request for Comments: 799 COMSAT Laboratories

September 1981

Internet Name Domains

1. Introduction

In the long run, it will not be practicable for every internet

host to include all internet hosts in its name-address tables. Even

now, with over four hundred names and nicknames in the combined

ARPANET-DCNET tables, this has become awkward. Some sort of

hierarchical name-space partitioning can easily be devised to deal

with this problem; however, it has been wickedly difficult to find one

compatible with the known mail systems throughout the community. The

one proposed here is the product of several discussions and meetings

and is believed both compatible with existing systems and extensible

for future systems involving thousands of hosts.

2. General Topology

We first observe that every internet host is uniquely identified

by one or more 32-bit internet addresses and that the entire system is

fully connected. For the moment, the issue of protocol compatibility

will be ignored, so that all hosts can be assumed MTP-competent. We

next impose a topological covering on the space of all internet

addresses with a set of so-called name domains. In the natural model,

name domains would correspond to institutions such as ARPA, UCL and

COMSAT, and would not be necessarily disjoint or complete. While in

principle name domains could be hierarchically structured, we will

assume in the following only a single-level structure.

Every name domain is associated with one or more internet

processes called mail forwarders and the name of that domain is the

name for any of these processes. Each forwarder process for a

particular domain is expected to maintain duplicate name-address

tables containing the names of all hosts in its domain and, in

addition, the name of at least one forwarder process for every other

domain. Forwarder processes may be replicated in the interests of

robustness; however, the resulting complexities in addressing and

routing will not be discussed further here. A particular internet

host may support a number of forwarder processes and their collective

names represent nicknames for that host, in addition to any other

names that host may have. In the following an internet host

supporting one or more forwarder proceses will be called simply a

forwarder.

Every host is expected to maintain name-address tables including

the names of at least one forwarder for every

Internet Name Domains PAGE 2

domain together with additional hosts a...