...

...

...

...

"MN" == Mike Norris <mnorris@hea.ie> writes:

Hi Mike! MN> Magnus MN> thanks for your thoughts and suggestions. They MN> are worthy of discussion in other lists too, but you're MN> probably right to start with the experts in the DNS MN> WG, of which I am not one. Mirjam did ask me to drop a proposal at DNS WG. Obviously she thougth there where some content in it... When I wrote the mail I did leave some things out and some of that has obviously created questions. I did assume that people would update their hostcount number in time for the hostcount (at the end of each month) and that this hostcount represents some number close to (but not necessarilly at) the reality. I did assume that a definition of the word hostcount (or which ever term would be prefered) would be done in some document so that no alternative interpretations would arise on a wide scope. MN> I don't think that at any time the DNS host count has MN> ever pretended to give even an approximate measure of MN> the number of Internet hosts, let alone the number of MN> Internet users. For example, there are some hostmasters MN> who use DNS as a database for all systems in their MN> jurisdiction, whether such systems have Internet access MN> or not; this has been going on for a long time. More MN> recently, there are many Internetters using machines hidden MN> behind application firewalls and filter lists which do not MN> appear in the host count. Well, I have personally never assumed much correctness from the hostcount myself, rather a good hint on where things is moving. However, as new people enter the stage they may not even take the time to understand the missing pieces and therefore could some closer numbers be of interest. This is not a main point, but could have some influence. MN> Perhaps the main use for the host count has been its MN> recording of growth in individual countries (and gTLDs), MN> in regions and in the world. It's really the change and MN> the rate of change that we get from the host count; the MN> absolute numbers are not that meaningful. Absolute/Exact numbers is not the goal, just numbers which is closer in some sense. Maybe will this hidden factor have a greater influence than we think and therefore would the hostcount be somewhat false numbers. MN> There are many factors causing the increase in the host MN> count. These include more desk-top computers (and less MN> multi-user systems), more ISPs, more connectivity, etc. MN> These factors and others seem so far to have outweighed MN> the advent of firewalls, as the curve continues inexorably MN> upwards. Of course it would be nice to know the number MN> of 'hidden' hosts, and this could only be done on a MN> trusted basis and with full cooperation from people at MN> all levels - not an easy task. No, it is not a easy task, but maybe is there enougth interest in doing this. MN> If this could be done, do you think there should be two MN> separate hostcounts - visible and hidden? If we combine MN> both in a single figure, we lose important information and MN> also change the meaning of historic data - there will be MN> a discontinuity in the curve. I agree that one cannot just change method overnigth and I also agree that just cludge the visible and hidden number together would be to loose interesting information. If it is feasable to do a separate report of hidden and visible hosts then I think it should be done. Cheers, Magnus