nanog mailing list archives
Re: oh, for goodness' sake.
From: "Forrest W. Christian" <forrestc () iMach com>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 22:46:15 -0600 (MDT)
On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
My vote's for NIC.INT. I'm still searching for the correct RFC on INT rules to see if that's appropriate, however.
Personally, I feel that with the new TLD's coming online, IMHO, there's no reason why one more couldn't be added JUST FOR stuff like RIPE and ARIN and the internic. And the Root servers, etc. Maybe .NIC or .REG or .CORE or .... ? Set the requirements so that only those organizations providing "core" internet services, which if break we're all screwed at least somewhat, can get a delegation under them. I can see one of the questions on the allocation form: 8) Estimate the number of messages which will be generated on the nanog list if your existing Domain was placed in hold status. - Forrest W. Christian (forrestc () imach com) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- iMach, Ltd., P.O. Box 5749, Helena, MT 59604 http://www.imach.com Solutions for your high-tech problems. (406)-442-6648 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- Re: oh, for goodness' sake., (continued)
- Re: oh, for goodness' sake. Michael Dillon (Apr 08)
- Re: oh, for goodness' sake. Stephen Sprunk (Apr 09)
- Re: oh, for goodness' sake. Dave Crocker (Apr 08)
- Message not available
- Re: oh, for goodness' sake. Jay R. Ashworth (Apr 08)
- Re: oh, for goodness' sake. Alex P. Rudnev (Apr 08)
- Re: oh, for goodness' sake. Jesper Skriver (Apr 09)
- Re: oh, for goodness' sake. davidk (Apr 10)
- Re: oh, for goodness' sake. Justin W. Newton (Apr 07)
- Re: oh, for goodness' sake. Forrest W. Christian (Apr 08)
- Re: oh, for goodness' sake. Andy Rabagliati (Apr 09)
- Re: oh, for goodness' sake. Alex P. Rudnev (Apr 10)
- Re: oh, for goodness' sake. Steve Davies (Apr 09)
- Re: oh, for goodness' sake. Eric Osborne (Apr 09)
- Re: oh, for goodness' sake. Greg Simpson (Apr 09)