[34351] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul A Vixie)
Sat Feb 3 18:39:25 2001
Message-Id: <200102032300.PAA29276@redpaul.mfnx.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Message from Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
of "Sat, 03 Feb 2001 14:35:23 PST." <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F092286039C41@condor.mhsc.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 15:00:06 -0800
From: Paul A Vixie <vixie@mfnx.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> > 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?
No. 90% of the name servers on the Internet fit that classification.
"Restricted notification" is not practical on that scale.
> Considering that they have a positive revenue model (vs TLD registries that
> don't, or have negative revenue models) I would suggest that they pay for it
> and help support ISC/BIND.
Of course, everyone should support ISC. And the Sierra Club for that matter.
But "should they support ISC?" is a completely different question than "if we
don't get them upgraded before the whole world knows about it, are we doomed?"
