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

[John Orthoefer <jco () direwolf com>]

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. 

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.