- From: Darren New <dnew@sgf.fv.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 16:06:34 +0000
- To: Matthew James Marnell <marnellm@portia.portia.com>
- Cc: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>, David Robinson <drtr1@cus.cam.ac.uk>, martin@mrrl.lut.ac.uk, www-talk@w3.org
> are choosing .com as opposed to .xx. As for lat and long, this is > nearly meaningless and probably will become moreso in the months and > years to come. Meaningless as far as network-closeness, yes. But useful for other purposes, like political ones. (Taxes, export laws, censorship laws, etc etc etc.) > My favorite example is a shop up the street and me. > Geographically-wise we're not much more than a couple miles apart. > Net-wise we're on opposite ends of the continent. Yah. The place I commuted to for work actually not only went cross-country and back, but also took a short hop thru Canada on occasion. To get from my home to the place I drove to each morning. Sheesh. > What people are wanting to do here is finding the closest net-wise > server to the client. This is more a function of routing, ping avg's and > traceroutes than it is a function of locality or domain names. True. Which is why the DNS should include geographic information rather than network-nearness. Network-nearness can be calculated, and can change on an hour-by-hour basis. Generally, IP addresses stay within a relatively small geographic region (currently). -- Darren New / Director of Custom Software Dev / First Virtual Holdings Inc. Anyone can buy and sell information over the internet for real money TODAY! http://www.fv.com or info@fv.com -=|=- PGP key: finger dnew@sgf.fv.com SUPPORT PHIL ZIMMERMANN! zldf@clark.net or http://www.netresponse.com/zldf
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 1995 16:13:06 UTC