If I may correct a point. IPv4 and IPv6 development is guided by the<a href="http://goog_1540818101" target="_blank"> </a><span><a href="https://www.ietf.org/" target="_blank">Internet Engineering Task Force</a> (IETF) and many implementations of DNS either use BIND or mimic the behavior of BIND - primarily developed by the <a href="https://www.isc.org/" target="_blank">Internet Systems Consortium</a> a public 501(c)3 public benefit corporation.</span><br>
<br>As Kerry noted, Microsoft, as per the guidelines of those groups, may submit to the ISC and IETF, they are not in control of neither.<br><br>-Mike<br><br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Carl Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lectriclou@hotmail.com" target="_blank">lectriclou@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Thanks Mike,<br>
<br>
You're on the right track, But V4 and v6 are MS proprietary and
the latter is fully under MS control. I don't have an answer
which solves the problem.<br>
<br>
Lou<br>
<br>
On 8/21/2012 10:46 AM, Michael Haffely wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">Under IPv4 that may be true, but under IPv6 all
devices may have unique identifiers and most of the problems of
end-to-end connectivity and are removed.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>HTML5's WEBRTC has some intriguing potential to remove the
tyranny of a "central point of control"<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-Mike<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Carl
Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lectriclou@hotmail.com" target="_blank">lectriclou@hotmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p style="margin-bottom:0in">The DNS problem and reason
for confusion is due to limitations imposed during the
infancy of development stages of machine
inter-connectivity. Basically, IP is insufficient to
grant each machine a unique identity. The limited IP
addresses are licensed to master networks which in
turn are sub-netted to machines which only have a
local identity slaved to the master.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in">Ultimately, we need a
unique ID for each machine which is not slaved or
controlled by a master. In that case the machines
become individual entities. We need a DNS system which
recognizes this unique character and allows direct
connection between unique entities.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in">This is not what commercial
enterprise demands. The corporate entities only have
one rule: Profit. This is in direct conflict with
individual liberty. A system of controlled connection
is the preference of the profiteer. Thus we have our
current Internet authority. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in">What we as noncommercial
enthusiasts desire is secure open connectivity
directly between unique identities which is secure yet
unhampered by overt regulation by commercial interest
such as corporations which includes government.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in">Just my thoughts,</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in">Lou Smith </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br>