[37680] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Stability of the Internet?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Mon May 21 18:46:36 2001
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Message-Id: <200105212301.XAA31927@vacation.karoshi.com>
To: rmeyer@mhsc.com (Roeland Meyer)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 23:01:45 +0000 (UCT)
Cc: bc@vicious.dropbear.id.au ('Bruce Campbell'), nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F0922860E465A@condor.mhsc.com> from "Roeland Meyer" at May 21, 2001 03:06:16 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> Since INT is for intenational treaty organization, the use of INT internally
> would create a collision. Thereby, masking the entire INT TLD from the
> clueless org that did that. In past /ICANN/DNSO discussions it has been
> suggested, that we reserve a LOCAL or PRIVATE TLD for internal use only. Let
> me know what y'all think and which one y'all prefer. My personal preference
> is for both (three tiered <Internet>/Local/Private). The next question is;
> should this be an RFC?
INT was originally earmarked for multinational organizations. It
was then inclusive of INTernet infrastructure and only later was
the multinational charter clarified to restrict these groups to
international treaty organizations.
There is work being done in the IETF to create such a private
use TLD.
--bill
