Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!cliff
From: cliff@garnet.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
Subject: Re: Proposed extensions to MX records.
Message-ID: <1991Mar28.182232.13467@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 28 Mar 91 18:22:32 GMT
References: <1991Mar28.170144.8370@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Reply-To: cliff@garnet.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost)
Organization: ucb
Lines: 23

In article <1991Mar28.170144.8370@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
|> 
|>  The following is a suggestion I wish to float, which might be of significant
|> use in dealing with some of the problems of mail handling.

This proposal implies using Domain Names for routing decisions.  It's always
been my understanding that a DNS name implies nothing at all about routing
(for IP or mail or anything else).  Is this no longer true?

For example, if all parties agree, and everyone sets up the name servers
properly, ABC.SomeU.EDU might appear on the net 128.32 here at UC Berkeley
instead of on net N.N which is physically at Some U.

In other words the DNS name implies nothing about topology (as I
understand it). 

Where I'm more confused is in the area of geographic "ISO-ish" domain names.
Is a name that ends in ".AU" absolultely required to refer to a host that
is physically in Australia?  When I say "required" I mean *formally* required
by the Domain Name System rules or their OSI equivalent.

	Cliff Frost
	UC Berkeley