[35634] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Wed Mar 14 04:52:47 2001
Message-Id: <200103140854.f2E8sSk18481@foo-bar-baz.cc.vt.edu>
To: Mike Batchelor <mikebat@tmcs.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:14:50 PST."
<LLEOLJEDPHOFANPCPKOMGEAPCCAA.mikebat@tmcs.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:54:28 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:14:50 PST, Mike Batchelor <mikebat@tmcs.net> said:
> Yes it is a value judgement. He has determined that the problem is
> insoluble. It isn't. And we don't have to abandon DNS as the nameservice
and also
> Well DUH! I totally agree that conflicting roots break things. But I don't
> think that conflicting roots is an inevitable consequence of having multiple
> roots, or even multiple root zones.
So which is it? If conflicting roots break things, then the problem
*is* insoluble.
Remember that RFC2826 only discusses the issue of conflicting roots - there's
no technical reason not to hand-wave and aggregate all identical roots
under one "naming authority" (totally unspecified - it's *WHATEVER METHOD*
got all the identical roots to *be* identical, even if it was 5 kegs of
beer at a trade show ;)
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech
