On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:46 AM, John Luke Gibson eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
abstract concept). So, ultimately, (at the very least) the degree of viability of addresses needs to be limited for practical reasons. Some might associate the suggestion of limiting this viability to possessors of addresses who facilitate the delivery delivery of messages to a higher degree than they strain the delivery of messages {(especially [or particularly, if you will] with the volume of messages-to-be-delivered-added),
i'm familiar with the microsoft network neighbourhood, having implemented it back in 1996-1998 for samba-tng. it's well-known as a "chatty" protocol (which is down to mis-configuration).
so it was pretty much universally hated.... so people dropped it.
then of course as the years go by people FORGET that the network neighbourhood is one of the most amazingly resilient and strategically fundamental resources that a network can have.
... so the free software community invented avahi and zeroconf.
and guess what? it's *just* as chatty, and just as hated. it's also totally broken by design, failing to implement key strategic features that would otherwise make it resilient.
the really fucking irritating thing, for me, is that it's based on an extension of the DNS protocol.... JUST LIKE THE NETWORK NEIGHBOURHOOD.
*sigh*.
anyway. working out "addresses" - as well as publishing and defending names - is a known and solved problem, john.
l.