From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 15:17:15 +0800
To: Michael Handler <grendel@netaxs.com>
Subject: Re: Domains, InterNIC, and PGP (and physical locations of hosts, to boot)
Message-ID: <m0tYofO-0008xhC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 11:15 PM 1/6/96 -0500, you wrote:

>ObGPS/cpunk/physical-location-of-machines: A recent IETF proposal would
>create a new DNS record that encoded the physical location of a
>machine, encoded in latitude and longitude. This would solve the
>problem MIT has had in distributing PGP, i.e. where exactly is
>unix5.netaxs.com? However, there's nothing to stop you from adding
>records that say your machines are at the latitude and longitude of,
>say, Fort Meade... ;-)
>
>    ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1876.txt
>
>Again, I'm not too sure of the viability of this proposal. Not on
>effectiveness of proving true location -- it is more geared toward
>"visual 3-D packet tracing" -- but simply because I have _no_ fricking
>idea where our machines are (in terms of lat and long) to any degree
>of accuracy.

Question:   Do we really WANT to advertise the location of machines?  Especially to an accuracy commensurate with current technology?  And if lying is possible, what's the point?!?

>("They're somewhere in PA." Brilliant, you can find that
>out via WHOIS.) The document suggests using GPS to locate your true
>location, but I'll be damned if my boss is going to spend $1,000 just
>so I can have more DNS entries to maintain...

BTW, the cheapest GPS receivers (Magellan 2000's, as I recall) at $200 at the local marine supply shop. Excellent price.  Even so,  I won't buy one when I get my first GPS reciever, for two reasons:

1.  No differential capability.  (will improve accuracy to typically 2 meters)
2.  Only two digits past the "minutes" decimal point resolution.