[35627] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick Greenwell)
Wed Mar 14 02:49:10 2001
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 20:39:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <patrick@cybernothing.org>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200103132003.f2DK34k08086@foo-bar-baz.cc.vt.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103132038070.57236-100000@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:29:23 PST, Patrick Greenwell said:
>
> > To be clear I am not arguing the merits of any of these particular
> > efforts, but simply that they exist, are operational, and as of yet the
> > "Internet" has not come crashing down upon anyones head.
>
> Yes, and I can run an SMTP server that requires all input to be ROT13
> encrypted, and it won't bring down the Internet. If 2-3% of the sites
> ran such SMTP servers, it wouldn't bring down the internet.
>
> If however, half the servers were ROT13 and half weren't, and the two
> did not interoperate, things WOULD start failing.
And do you believe that people would simply sit on their hands and lament
the lack of interoperability?
> If you use one root, everybody agrees what things look like.
>
> If you use multiple roots, what people will see depends on which root they ask.
>
> How is this political?
"...That one root must be supported by a set of coordinated root servers
administered by a unique naming authority."
