nanog mailing list archives

Re: root name servers

From: bmanning () ISI EDU (Bill Manning)
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 1995 20:25:25 -0700 (PDT)

For security and stability reasons (aswell as political) they should
not be run by a single organisation.


they never have been.


The Mannings proposal of a single domain, seems to me like the first
step...

--Peter


I think there may be a bit of confusion here.  There is a plan to compress
the root cache, making it appear to be a single, multi-homed machine. 

Then, there is the other entity... EP.NET, which is being soundly thrashed
by operators in the know.  They have -NO- relationship to each other.

-- 
--bill

Current thread:

Re: root name servers, (continued)
- Re: root name servers John A. Russo - Geonet Communications (Jul 29)
  - Re: root name servers Michael Dillon (Jul 29)
    - Re: root name servers Hans-Werner Braun (Jul 29)
- Re: root name servers Bill Manning (Jul 29)
- Re: root name servers Paul A Vixie (Jul 29)
- Re: root name servers Owen DeLong (Jul 29)
  - Re: root name servers Paul A Vixie (Jul 29)
  - Re: root name servers Paul Traina (Jul 29)
  - Re: root name servers Bill Manning (Jul 30)
- Re: root name servers Peter Lothberg (Jul 29)
  - Re: root name servers Bill Manning (Jul 30)
    - Re: root name servers Paul A Vixie (Jul 30)
  - Re: root name servers Mark Kosters (Jul 31)
- Re: root name servers Sean Doran (Jul 30)
  - Re: root name servers Nathan Stratton (Jul 30)
- Re: root name servers Owen DeLong (Jul 30)
  - Re: root name servers Paul A Vixie (Jul 30)
- Re: root name servers Tim Salo (Jul 30)
- Re: root name servers Owen DeLong (Jul 30)