North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: uDNS Root Name Servers Taking Shape - on a couple ISDN lines
I have already been labelled a kook. C'mon DNS people. Please move your discussions elsewhere..... On Thu, 29 May 1997, Ehud Gavron wrote: > Will the Newdom, Edns, Udns, Ufp, Confederations, Federations, > and morons alike please take it to your respective lists. > > NANOG, as has been stated so often even you guys can get it, > is for operations issues. DNS "as is" is an operations issue. > DNS "as you wish it were" is something for you to discuss till > you're blue in the face. > > I'm tired of this drivel, and you keep adding lists and idiots > I can't killfile it fast enough. > > Ehud > > > >On Thu, 29 May 1997 18:03:13 -0500, Karl wrote: > > >>> ;; ADDITIONAL RECORDS: > >>> root.starfire.douglas.ma.us. 86400 A 208.195.108.8 > >>Multi-homed condition unknown and suspect due to truncated BGP path. > > >Yup, not multihomed until the new router comes in. :-( > > >>Approximate bandwidth from the core to this point on the network > >>from us at this point in time: 34.56kbps, or a good modem line :-) > > >Gee, it's a T1 from here, must be a problem on your end. <grin> > > >>THIS NAMESERVER IS RUNNING WITH RECURSION ENABLED > > >Yup, until next week when we get the new box up. > > >> AND IS NOT A TRUE ROOT. > > >Says you, the grand high holy keeper of the ONE TRUE ROOTS. Ha! > > >>> hp.manhattan.com. 172800 A 199.103.194.137 > >>Aggregated by (and complete path from) Open Advisors. Appears to be > >>multi-homed. > > >Yup. > > >>Approximate bandwidth to this point on the network: 65.28kbps, or a > >> single-channel ISDN equivalent. > > >You really should check your lines Karl, a multihomed server on a > >single channel ISDN, I don't think so... > > >>**** NOTICE: > >>THIS NAMESERVER IS RUNNING WITH RECURSION > > >Hmm... the name.boot file has it set off. I'll check it out. > > > AND IS NOT A TRUE ROOT. > > ><yawn> > > >>> DONTSERF.MAKEWAVES.NET. 172800 A 204.94.43.1 > >>Alternic under a different name, operated by Diane Boling, and running > >>with both nameservers on the same subnet. Linked to Seanet, which appears > >>to be multihomed. > > >Yup. > > >>Approximate bandwidth to this point on the network: 629kbps (my god, they > >>have one root with a fractional T1 worth of bandwidth available!) > > >Well, I guess your lines came back up! <grin> > > >>**** NOTICE: > >>THIS NAMESERVER IS ALSO RUNNING WITH RECURSION ENABLED > > >could be. > > > AND IS NOT A TRUE ROOT. > > ><yawn> > > >>I rest my case. Only one of these has anything approaching reasonable > >>connectivity, all appear to be off single-point failure circuits (except > >>possibly manhattan.com), and all are running in non-RFC2010 mode. > > >Yah, we really need RFC2010 servers to run 1/2% of the internet - NOT! > > >Seriously, our schedule calls for 5 dedicated, non-recursive servers > >up by next week this time, with T1 of better connectivity. We plan > >full RFC2010 by the time we reach 5% visibility. Feel free to market > >your system's RFC2010 compliance as an absolute must for servers that > >handle a fraction of a percent of the internet's DNS requests, I'd be > >surprised if any of the "internet aware" people on these lists you are > >posting to care... > > >Take care, > >Ron Kimball for the uDNS council > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|