[44390] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: how many roots must DNS have before it's considered broken (Re:
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Thu Nov 22 01:08:34 2001
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 01:09:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
To: Steve Gibbard <scg@gibbard.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10111212051580.15717-100000@toodles.gibbard.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0111220103300.2078-100000@clifden.donelan.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Steve Gibbard wrote:
> 24 seems way too young to be an old timer, but I keep reading these DNS
> arguments and wondering if everybody else has forgotten that we've already
> seen something very similar to multiple roots, and that the market has
> already taken care of it. While I could possibly be proven wrong if
I found an archive of NAMEDROPPERS going back to 1983. If you are
interested in the subject, or just want to know how we got here, its
an interesting read.
Anonymous FTP at ftp://ops.ietf.org/lists/ in 1983, 1984, etc.
If you don't know the past, you are doomed to repeat it. Even though
I disagree with some of them, I understand some of the decisions a
bit better.
