[35509] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: external issues in dns scalability (1995) (was Re: Namespaces
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roeland Meyer)
Sat Mar 10 11:59:45 2001
Message-ID: <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F092286039C93@condor.mhsc.com>
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: "'woods@weird.com'" <woods@weird.com>,
Paul Vixie <vixie@mfnx.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 11:01:37 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Closing down COM, et al, isn't going to happen anytime soon. ... or is "King
Canute" your real name? Market forces are like the tides, they come and go.
The only choices are to work with them or drown.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: woods@weird.com [mailto:woods@weird.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 9:29 AM
> To: Paul Vixie
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: external issues in dns scalability (1995) (was Re:
> Namespaces)
>
>
>
> [ On , March 8, 2001 at 07:43:37 (-0800), Paul Vixie wrote: ]
> > Subject: external issues in dns scalability (1995) (was Re:
> Namespaces)
> >
> > All I can really say is: "I told y'all so." Vadim, thanks
> for reminding me
> > that there was a time when these problems were still soluble.
>
> Wow. Re-reading that paper now is like deja vu all over again! Seems
> like it was many decades ago....
>
> I think, IIRC, I agreed with many points you made back then (and
> especially the controversial ones like, avoidance of
> government (except
> maybe the UN), closing .COM et al, the support of ISO country code
> domains, etc.), and I'm almost certain that I fully agree with all of
> them now.
>
> Even though we sort of have shared-registry types of things happening
> now I'm not so sure it would hurt to go back to one registry per gTLD.
>
> The problem is that it all hinges on closing down .COM, et al....
>
> --
> Greg A. Woods
>
> +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoods@acm.org>
> <robohack!woods>
> Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird
> <woods@weird.com>
>
