🚀 go-pugleaf

I wrote:

>"UTORVM1" is an NJE network level
>address, it is used by the networking software on bitnet machines for
>routing purposes.  Its nearest functional analogue (and a pretty good
>match in terms of function, at that) for hosts on an IP network would
>be something like 128.100.63.2.INTERNET.  I think the reason the NIC
>won't register .BITNET (and shouldn't register CREN.ORG or CREN.NET to
>be used for the same purpose) is about the same reason they don't register
>a .INTERNET domain with the usage above.

blarson@dianne.usc.edu (bob larson) wrote:

> But they DO register such things!  Actuallty, it would be
> 2.63.100.128.IN-ADDR.ARPA, and they are registered so that IP numbers
> can be translated into domain names.
...
> The facts that many
> internet users don't know such things exist is a credit to the
> designers and implimentors.

:-) I really was sort of aware such things existed.  The workstation
I am typing this into (under my desk) is authoritative for
100.128.in-addr.arpa and has files with lots and lots of entries like
that.  I also like to run traceroute, sometimes look at logs of
people who have logged into my machines and where they logged in from,
and do similar things where this data is used.

You miss the point (or I didn't explain it well enough), I think.  Those
records exist for no reason other than to allow users on Internet machines to
never have to look at a network address like 128.100.63.2 (bet you can't
send mail to 2.63.100.128.in-addr.arpa no matter what you do).  Whenever
an address from the network needs to be displayed, the applications turn
it back into a name for humans to look at.  Your average user on the
machine whose IP network address is 128.100.63.2 can get by without ever
seeing, and certainly never typing 128.100.63.2.  Humans refer to hosts
by name, not by irrelevant, hard-to-remember and likely-to-change things
like network addresses.

Now, if the applications on my Internet-attached hosts go to such lengths
to prevent me from even seeing, let alone typing, IP network addresses,
and if the domain name service was designed explicitly to support the
hiding of such addresses from users, does it make any sense at all to turn
around and put NJE network addresses in there?  Particularly since the
purpose of doing so is to permit me to have the extreme displeasure of typing
said NJE network addresses to send people on BITNET machines mail?  If
this were allowed would BITNET return the favour by demanding that its
users type 2.63.100.128.in-addr.arpa when mailing to me?

Bitnet should keep its NJE network addresses to itself, just as the
Internet tries hard to keep the necessity of dealing IP network addresses
not only from Bitnet users but even from Internet users.  Let's name our hosts,
no matter what network they are on, and be done with it.

Dennis