[122443] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: History of 4.2.2.2. What's the story?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Sun Feb 14 19:06:51 2010
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <822765A6-CB72-4835-A069-C151D0402259@direwolf.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:06:27 -0500
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:55 PM, John Orthoefer wrote:
> At the time I was involved it did have an SLA, and was considered =
critical infrastructure for Genuitity customers. Once we started to =
deploy 4.2.2.1, we gave customers time to swap over, but we started =
turning off our existing DNS servers.=20
Sorry for the confusion, I should have said "for non-customers of L3".
I was responding the statement that the name servers were controlled by =
"*one* external route". If you are a customer, IGP matters, not BGP, =
and SLAs obviously are a different situation. For people who are not =
customers, SLAs are unusual.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
> One reason we did it was that we kept having to deploy more servers, =
and getting customers to swing there hosts over to the new machines was =
all but impossible. With NetNews, and SMTP we used a Cisco =
Distributed Director. But we needed another solution for DNS.
>=20
> johno
>=20
> On Feb 14, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>> It's an open recursive name server, it is free, has no SLA, and is =
not critical infrastructure.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20
