[151065] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jonathan Lassoff)
Sat Mar 10 15:24:06 2012
In-Reply-To: <79350CD0-0BFE-4590-9856-B85C34F89241@pch.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 12:23:20 -0800
From: Jonathan Lassoff <jof@thejof.com>
To: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
>
> On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> Sure, if you can find a datacenter that's capable of handling all the
>> traffic, and has staff who are able to provide efficient remote hands fo=
r
>> huge racks of extremely powerful servers .
>
> Honestly, we haven't even gotten that far when we've offered to deploy se=
rvers (for instance for domains like .IN) inside India. =A0The bribes that =
were requested in exchange for giving us permission to deploy a free servic=
e were, uh, both prohibitive and ludicrous in their enormity.
This.
This and the import duties on hardware and the requirement for
licensing to operate as an "ISP" makes placing even a modest
deployment a lot more work compared to deploying in other neighboring
countries.
I would presume that Verisign decided that it just wasn't worth the
effort to deploy into India.
It obviously has a gigantic user base for which getting into local
ISPs and IXPs would probably save on transit costs.
Perhaps if some local root operators could donate some
space/power/connectivity, Verisign-grs could colocate a gTLD cluster
there?
Cheers,
jof
