Subject: [P2Prg] RE: DNS and P2P

From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar \(UMKC-Student\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:59:06 -0500

> We can look at DNSEXT to see if in fact what 
> you mention below can be incorporated in an 
> extended DNS. 

Not extending DNS.. A better reference resolution model 
to reduce the overloading pain in DNS using proposed 
distributed object location routing systems.

To realize such a system, we have to first concentrate
on the issue of naming. If we can use semantically 
meaningless names -like cryptographic keys, we don't 
have to politicize the whole DNS delegation ( and there 
by avoid problems like "cyber squatting" etc..) Also, we 
have issues with *referential integrity* in current DNS 
system. Current structured overlay proposals can help 
us here. 

IPTPS conference papers have some thoughts about using
P2P for DNS type of resolution etc. But, there are lot 
more avenues to concentrate on...

>> Another thing we can discuss is how P2P's service 
>> resolution & routing model compares to the DNS 
>> (domain name server) model.

better way is to list the *shortcomings* of DNS and 
see, what P2P has to offer...

_______________________________________________
P2prg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg

---

From: Scott Michel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:52:09 -0700

Ok, I'll bite...

> distributed object location routing systems.

DNS is useful for bootstrapping. In P2P overlay construction, it allows us 
to get a list of initial candidates and iteratively or recursively building 
the overlay.

Delegation is also a strong mechanism for making things scale to large 
numbers of participants. We know this because it works ("rough consensus, 
working code" and that code, despite the occaisional defect, works well.) We 
also know, from operational experience, that delegation works well 
administratively, since responsibility for a zone is pushed to the zone's 
administrative and technical contact.

Intermediate caching is another strong mechanism that's been proven to have 
benefits, although Balakrishnan's SIGCOMM IMW'01 paper takes issue with this 
point.

What doesn't map well is DNS' iterative search, the source of the pain that 
you mention. At some point in DNS' implied overlay, a resolver has to 
iteratively query zone servers. In the DHT systems, iteration is avoided by 
transparent forwarding.

> system. Current structured overlay proposals can help 

No debate here: naming is important. DNS and the canonical P2P applications 
are the few applications where a name is known a priori and can be 
"semantically meaningless". However, semantically meaningless names lose 
prefix information (e.g., higher level DNS zone information). This can have 
a negative impact on routing and forwarding in a P2P system.

> see, what P2P has to offer...

DNS has a fixed message format, max message size... which can be fixed by a 
new infrastructure. But I wouldn't jump to the contusion that a brand new 
P2P-based infrastructure for doing host name resolution just to add new 
features is necessary or desireable. After all, you need to bootstrap the 
P2P overlay or create an implied overlay like DNS does.

-scooter