Re: ICANN off the map

[Patrick Greenwell <patrick () cybernothing org>]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2001, Sean Donelan wrote:

> > I don't believe I ever said it did. If you think that I get some sort of
> > pleasure out of them being down, I don't.
>
> As far as I can tell, DNS for icann.org is functioning as designed.
> It has several name servers dispersed across geographical areas and
> network topology which continue to give authoritative answers for the
> icann.org zone without interruption.  Isn't that how its supposed to
> work?
>
> ICANN has nothing to do with routing, the world wide web, or lots
> of other things on the Internet.

No but the fact that sh ip bgp 192.0.0.0 results in "Network not in table"
from every publicly available route server I've checked has everything to
do with routing thus it would seem that this is somewhat operationally on
topic.

This isn't about ICANN per se, but rather about a good chunk of address space
being unreachable for some unknown reason that has very little to do with
"normal maintenance."

That the people that want to run the Internet are too incompetent to sign
up with Akamai or utilize some other mechanism to ensure that people can
reach their site in the event of an outage like any reasonably
serious business would do is a seperate matter.

But since you bring it up, if they can't run a website, do you want them
running the Internet?