[16037] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: oh, for goodness' sake.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Forrest W. Christian)
Thu Apr 9 01:01:11 1998
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 22:46:15 -0600 (MDT)
From: "Forrest W. Christian" <forrestc@iMach.com>
To: Stephen Sprunk <sprunk@paranet.com>
cc: Michael Dillon <Michael@memra.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <352C0FCF.D9ED18B@paranet.com>
On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> My vote's for NIC.INT. I'm still searching for the correct RFC on INT
> rules to see if that's appropriate, however.
Personally, I feel that with the new TLD's coming online, IMHO, there's no
reason why one more couldn't be added JUST FOR stuff like RIPE and ARIN
and the internic. And the Root servers, etc.
Maybe .NIC or .REG or .CORE or .... ?
Set the requirements so that only those organizations providing "core"
internet services, which if break we're all screwed at least somewhat, can
get a delegation under them.
I can see one of the questions on the allocation form:
8) Estimate the number of messages which will be generated on the nanog
list if your existing Domain was placed in hold status.
- Forrest W. Christian (forrestc@imach.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
iMach, Ltd., P.O. Box 5749, Helena, MT 59604 http://www.imach.com
Solutions for your high-tech problems. (406)-442-6648
----------------------------------------------------------------------
