The IPtX Domain Name Service Specification; IPtX-MX DNS
draft-terrell-iptx-mx-dns-specification-04
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Eugene Terrell | ||
| Last updated | 2007-09-04 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This document defines the IPtX Specification for the 'Domain Name Service' (IPtX / IPtX-MX DNS), and eliminates the possibility of an Addressing 'Conflict', or a Mathematical Addressing Error in the IPtX Address Space when using Multiple IPtX Addressing Formats. In other words, the IPtX / IPtX-MX IP Addressing format on the "Back-End", or "Backbone", obtains its uniqueness through the use and / or difference defined by the accuracy of the 'Exponential Decimal String'. However, this uniqueness, if not clarified, would not be discernable on the "Front-End", because the IPtX IP Addressing Specification 'Allows' only a '48' Bit-Mapped IP Address, or 2 Octets and 4 '10 Bit-Quadrants', and up to 60 Bits for every IP Addressing Format greater than IPt1. That is, on the "Front-End", if there is No distinction, because every Addressing Format in the IPtX Specification, when Resolved, is Equal, there will ultimately be Address Conflicts within the Addressing Scheme. Nevertheless, this clarification, when used in conjunction with the IPtX 32 / 64 Bit Header, allows the simultaneous use of (2E24) 16,777,216 different IPtX / IPtX-MX IP Addressing Specifications; the Concurrent use of the IPtX / IPtX-MX IP Addressing Specifications 'IPt1' thru 'IPt16,777,216'.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)