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.