Re: History of 4.2.2.2. What's the story?

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:55 PM, John Orthoefer wrote:

> At the time I was involved it did have an SLA, and was considered critical infrastructure for Genuitity customers.   
> Once we started to deploy 4.2.2.1, we gave customers time to swap over, but we started turning off our existing DNS 
> servers. 

Sorry for the confusion, I should have said "for non-customers of L3".

I was responding the statement that the name servers were controlled by "*one* external route".  If you are a customer, 
IGP matters, not BGP, and SLAs obviously are a different situation.  For people who are not customers, SLAs are unusual.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


> One reason we did it was that we kept having to deploy more servers, and getting customers to swing there hosts over 
> to the new machines was all but impossible.    With NetNews, and SMTP we used a Cisco Distributed Director.   But we 
> needed another solution for DNS.
>
> johno
>
> On Feb 14, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> > It's an open recursive name server, it is free, has no SLA, and is not critical infrastructure.