[194621] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Question to Google
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Mon May 15 13:43:05 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CABSP1OdPnGtM0ZSpn4SHyrMs0cP01ak_R5CoepqSOWypzMXbwA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 13:43:02 -0400
To: Damian Menscher <damian@google.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Damian Menscher via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 07:55:41AM -0700,
> > Damian Menscher <damian@google.com> wrote
> > a message of 82 lines which said:
> >
> > > Can you point to published studies where the root and .com server
> > > operators analyzed Todd's questions?
> >
> > For the root, the most comprehensive one is probably SAC 18
> > <www.icann.org/committees/security/sac018.pdf> A good summary is
> > <www.icann.org/en/meetings/lisbon/presentation-woolf-ssac-28mar07.pdf>
> >
>
> Thanks for sharing. From my quick read, it looks like this was a careful
> analysis of the expected impact, not a review of the actual impact. It
> reminds me of an instructive joke: "In theory, theory and practice are the
> same. In practice, they are not."
>
>
> also, a BUNCH has changed since 2007... with respect to the ipv4/ipv6
landscape.
