[164276] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: .nyc - here we go...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Ferguson)
Wed Jul 3 01:04:45 2013
In-Reply-To: <CAFmRQfV6pxYVLbov7e+8QBOkXEcuVTLC_X9tz1ksrUm9knnwmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 22:04:05 -0700
From: Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <asullivan@dyn.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Why does this discussion have to always be "one or the other"?
We have multiple problems here, friends.
Focus.
- ferg
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Andrew Sullivan <asullivan@dyn.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Makes me wonder if concern for routing table size is worrying about the
>> right thing.
>>
>
> Because obviously, the problems of scaling router memory and scaling DNS
> servers are the same kind?
>
> Yes, having many many new TLDs introduces new problems. (If you're not
> scared enough, I encourage you to go read the output of the Variant Issues
> Project. Full disclosure: I had a hand in.) Why are we talking about this
> non-news now? We all knew about three years ago, at the latest, that ICANN
> was planning to do this. If we didn't, shame on us.
>
> A
--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
