|
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
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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|