[34349] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jamie rishaw)
Sat Feb 3 18:03:03 2001
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 17:35:54 -0500
From: jamie rishaw <jamie@arpa.com>
To: Patrick Greenwell <patrick@cybernothing.org>
Cc: Paul A Vixie <vixie@mfnx.net>, nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010203173554.J389@arpa.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102031404520.66812-100000@localhost>; from patrick@cybernothing.org on Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 02:14:12PM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 02:14:12PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>
> I count 141 ICANN "fully: accrediated domain name registrars, with an
> unknown number of secondary registrars due to systems like OpenSRS.
>
> These organizations collectively handle second-level name resolution for
> the overwhelming majority of the millions of .com, .net, and .org domains
> in use on the Internet. And while I haven't done a survey, I'd surmise
> that they overwhelmingly use BIND.
>
> Will these 141 organizations many of whose business relies on BIND be
> eligible for your fee-based list? Do they consitute providers of "critical
> infrastructure" in your eyes?
>
They're registrars. The don't directly provide DNS in any more critical
a nature than any commercial DNS provider.
And, since they're commercial organizations using BIND in a commercial
aspect, I think they can cough up the money.
--
i am jamie at arpa dot com .. and this is my .sig.
core1.dns.microsoft.com# sho access-list 101
Extended IP access list 101
deny udp any any eq domain (874572345872345 matches)
