[20816] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: root name servers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kamau Wanguhu)
Wed Oct 28 10:46:26 1998
From: Kamau Wanguhu <kamau@crl.dec.com>
To: "'Phil Howard'" <phil@whistler.intur.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:04:41 -0500
How about the other ones from L-M where are they "physically" located?
----
Kamau Wanguhu
Cambridge Research Lab
Compaq Computer Corporation
kamau@crl.dec.com <mailto:kamau@crl.dec.com>
+1.617.692.7613
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Howard [mailto:phil@whistler.intur.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 1998 09:34
> To: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: root name servers
>
>
> Jay R. Ashworth writes...
>
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 1998 at 08:29:43AM -0800,
> bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > > > anybody knows the physical location
> > > > of all root name servers, or a pointer ?
> > > Is it really important?
> >
> > The sort of person who wants to know this is roughly the
> same sort of
> > person who is interested in knowing that the AT&T Startum 1
> clock is in
> > Hillsboro MO.
> >
> > You know: geeks. :-)
>
> OTOH, some of us don't care about those root servers because
> we already
> know where our own root servers are. All but one of my DNS
> servers are
> grass roots servers. You can take down all the root servers,
> and if that
> didn't also take out the TLD (e.g. .COM, .NET, .ORG, .GOV)
> servers, then
> I won't notice it much (except to wonder why there is a dropoff in my
> load on smtp and http).
>
> BTW, knowing where the main root servers are topologically is probably
> more dangerous than knowing where they all are physically.
> And that is
> information most everyone already has.
>
> --
> -- *-----------------------------* Phil Howard
> KA9WGN * --
> -- | Inturnet, Inc. | Director of Internet
> Services | --
> -- | Business Internet Solutions | eng at intur.net
> | --
> -- *-----------------------------* philh at
> intur.net * --
>
