nanog mailing list archives
Re: .nyc - here we go...
From: Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 22:04:05 -0700
Why does this discussion have to always be "one or the other"? We have multiple problems here, friends. Focus. - ferg On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Andrew Sullivan <asullivan () dyn com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon () cox net> wrote:Makes me wonder if concern for routing table size is worrying about the right thing.Because obviously, the problems of scaling router memory and scaling DNS servers are the same kind? Yes, having many many new TLDs introduces new problems. (If you're not scared enough, I encourage you to go read the output of the Variant Issues Project. Full disclosure: I had a hand in.) Why are we talking about this non-news now? We all knew about three years ago, at the latest, that ICANN was planning to do this. If we didn't, shame on us. A
-- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
Current thread:
- Re: .nyc - here we go..., (continued)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Scott Weeks (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Rubens Kuhl (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Paul Ferguson (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Rubens Kuhl (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Paul Ferguson (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Rubens Kuhl (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Paul Ferguson (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Rubens Kuhl (Jul 02)
- Message not available
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Larry Sheldon (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Paul Ferguson (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Andrew Sullivan (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Paul Ferguson (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Kyle Creyts (Jul 03)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Joe Abley (Jul 04)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Scott Weeks (Jul 02)
- Message not available
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Larry Sheldon (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Mark Andrews (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Paul Ferguson (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... John Levine (Jul 02)