Subject: Re: Fwd: Fw: [DNSOP] Re: draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-02

From: Lican Huang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:09:40 +0100 (BST)

Please use  this email address  to contact with me.  My other email [email-masked]  has some problems these days. 
   
  Best regards,
   
  Lican Huang

Lican Huang <[email-masked]> wrote:
    Dear Mr. Stephane Bortzmeyer,
  
  Thank you for your comments.
  
  The address space of IPv6 is huge means in the future, the next generation Internet will have a huge number of the IP addresses as well as Domain names.
  
  The time and space complexity claim of section 3 is as follwoing:
  
Complexity ( similar as the paper in Huang, L., "VIRGO: Virtual Hierarchical Overlay
 Network for Scalable Grid Computing ",Proc.
  European Grid Conference(EGC2005), in LNCS 3470,
  p911-921, 2005.)
  
     Because the DNS server nodes are virtually organized as a tuple virtual tree, every DNS server has a route table  which includes prerequiste DNS servers' IP addresses for Tree Paths (TREE portion) and cached DNS servers' IP addresses (CACHED portion). 
 
    Because the message is routed according to the minimum of theoretical distance from destination node , and the route table contains TREE portion,  every hop reduces the distance from destination node by at least one hop,
 
  Therefore, 

    hops(a,b) and message_cost < length(a) + length(b)-1           (1)
  
  Where, hops(a,b) is for the hops from node a to node b; length(a),length(b) are for 
  node a domain name lengths and node b domain name lengths respectively. for example, the lenth of www.nic.fr is 3.

  So,
 time complexity = O(L)          (2) , 
  where L is the tree depth. 

 Because the route table of the virtual gateway nodes virtually existed from root layer to bottom layer groups has the maximum   route items of nodes's information, we have:
  
  items of route table = L*N_tuple*nvg +Max_Cached   (3)
  ,where L is the depth of virtual Tree, N_tuple is multiplicity of gateway nodes for virtual tree,
  nvg is number of virtual groups, Max_Cached is the  maximum number of cached records in the route table 
  
  Therefore,
 space complexity = O(L)                                           (4)
  
  Suppose all leaf virtual groups have the same number of nodes,  nvg and all non-leaf virtual groups have the same number of nodes, nvg *n_tuple , then the number of layers L is log_nvg(N) , where   N is the total node size of the network. So,
  
  time complexity and message_cost = O(log N)         (5)
 space complexity = O(log N)                                    (6)
 
 Why use Cached route nodes in route table?
  This is because that tree like network will has traffic in the nodes within root layer. This can be avoided by randomly choose a next hop node from   the CACHED portion nodes and TREE portion nodes. 

 2.3 "On-demand domain" section 
  a machine may "have" several domain names.
  
 Domain names now is used for corresponding with IP address. But, I argue that in the future, Domain name is not only for IP address, but has some social  meanings in it. For example, a machine is the provider of Song of Britney and Madanna, this machine may use
  www.Britney.popular.music and www.Madonna .popular.music as its  Domain Names. You can easily locate the machine which provides Song of Britney and Madanna by registering
  this machine the domain names of www.Britney.popular.music and www.Madonna .popular.music, and virtually  join the corresponding virtual groups in the DNS network. 
  
  Thank you again.
  
  Best regards,
  
  Lican Huang 

huang lican <[email-masked]> wrote:
  From: "huang lican" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Fw: [DNSOP] Re: draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-02
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:11:43 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "huang lican" 

To: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" 
Cc: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Re: draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-02

> Dear Mr. Stephane Bortzmeyer,
> 
> Thank you for your comments.
> The address space of IPv6 is huge means in the future, the next generation Internet will have a huge number of the IP addresses as well as Domain names.
> The time and space complexity claim of section 3 is as follwoing:
> 
> complexity ( similar as the paper in Huang, L., "VIRGO: Virtual Hierarchical Overlay
> Network for Scalable Grid Computing ",Proc.
> European Grid Conference(EGC2005), in LNCS 3470,
> p911-921, 2005.)
> 
> Because the DNS server nodes are virtually organized as a tuple virtual tree, every DNS server has a route table
> which includes prerequiste DNS servers' IP addresses for Tree Paths (TREE portion) and cached DNS servers' IP addresses (CACHED portion). 
> 
> Because the message is routed according to the minimum of theoretical distance from destination node , and the route table contains TREE portion, 
> every hop reduces the distance from destination node by at least one hop,
> 
> Therefore, 
> hops(a,b) and message_cost < length(a) + length(b)-1 (1)
> Where, hops(a,b) is for the hops from node a to node b; length(a),length(b) are for
> node a domain name lengths and node b domain name lengths respectively. for example, the lenth of www.nic.fr is 3.
> 
> So,
> time complexity = O(L) (2) , 
> where L is the tree depth. 
> 
> 
> Because the route table of the virtual gateway nodes virtually existed from root layer to bottom layer groups has the maximum 
> route items of nodes's information, we have:
> 
> items of route table = L*N_tuple*nvg +Max_Cached (3)
> 
> ,where L is the depth of virtual Tree, N_tuple is multiplicity of gateway nodes for virtual tree,
> nvg is number of virtual groups, Max_Cached is the
> maximum number of cached records in the route table 
> 
> Therefore,
> space complexity = O(L) (4)
> 
> Suppose all leaf virtual groups have the same number of nodes,
> nvg and all non-leaf virtual groups have the same number of nodes, nvg *n_tuple , then the number of layers L is log_nvg(N) , where
> N is the total node size of the network. So,
> 
> time complexity and message_cost = O(log N) (5)
> 
> space complexity = O(log N) (6)
> 
> 
> Why use Cached route nodes in route table?
> 
> This is because that tree like network will has traffic in the nodes within root layer. This can be avoided by randomly choose a next hop node from
> the CACHED portion nodes and TREE portion nodes. 
> 
> 2.3 "On-demand domain" section 
> a machine may "have" several domain names.
> 
> Domain names now is used for corresponding with IP address. But, I argue that in the future, Domain name is not only for IP address, but has some social 
> meanings in it. For example, a machine is the provider of Song of Britney and Madanna, this machine may use
> www.Britney.popular.music and www.Madonna .popular.music as its
> Domain Names. You can easily locate the machine which provides Song of Britney and Madanna by registering
> this machine the domain names of www.Britney.popular.music and www.Madonna .popular.music, and virtually 
> join the corresponding virtual groups in the DNS network. 
> 
> 
> Thank you again.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Lican Huang 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" 
> To: "Lican Huang" 

> Cc: 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 4:30 AM
> Subject: [DNSOP] Re: draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-02
> 
> 
> > I do not find in the I-D draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-02.txt
> > a notice about the right forum for the discussion? Since there is
> > "dnsop" in the title, I copy the dnsop WG but let me know if you
> > disagree.
> > 
> > This is not a complete review of the draft because my main problem is
> > that the draft is quite... drafty. There are few technical details,
> > there is a lot of hand waving (saying "IPv6 is huge" each time there
> > is a difficulty will not help), many claims are not backed by facts
> > (such as "the existing DNS architecture is unsuitable for the growth
> > of the Internet" or such as the time and space complexity claim of
> > section 3, which is apparently not demonstrated).
> > 
> > Some sections are very puzzling, for instance 2.3 "On-demand domain
> > names" seem to have been written by someone with very little Internet
> > experience because it presents as a big discovery the fact that a
> > machine may "have" several domain names.
> > 
> > I find personally very difficult to determine if there is actual
> > substance in this draft. For the next version, I suggest to focus on a
> > few things, and to stop trying to do so many at the same time.
> > 
> > Do note, for instance, that the Ramasubramanian and Sirer paper that
> > you mention is careful to talk only about resolution and does not go
> > into registration issues.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > DNSOP mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
    
---------------------------------
  Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Try it now.

---------------------------------
Juggling multiple email accounts? Why bother? Consolidate them all in Yahoo! Mail with our quick, easy tool.

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop