uDNS mail. Hit D now.
>Approximate bandwidth from the core to this point on the network
>from us at this point in time: 34.56kbps, or a good modem line 
Gee, it's a T1 from here, must be a problem on your end. <grin>
>THIS NAMESERVER IS RUNNING WITH RECURSION ENABLED
Yup, until next week when we get the new box up.
Why? Run out of pee-cee's for your little isp? Or do you have to
wait until your buddy gets hired at his new ISP so you can move the
quake server?
>**** NOTICE:
>THIS NAMESERVER IS RUNNING WITH RECURSION
Hmm... the name.boot file has it set off. I'll check it out.
Somehow I fear putting my DNS in the hands of someone who says "Hmm..."
over a named.boot file.
Seriously, our schedule calls for 5 dedicated, non-recursive servers
up by next week this time, with T1 of better connectivity.
"Oh, we'll have quadruple this Real Soon Now(tm). We decided that it was
a Good Thing to release this project with a crappy server and crappy links..
but honest.. we're fixing it!"
We plan
full RFC2010 by the time we reach 5% visibility.
So.. never, right?
I dont get it. Why wait until later to do things _right_?
..jgkr
uDNS mail. Hit D now.
Kind of like "Intel Inside". <grin>
Yup, until next week when we get the new box up.
Why? Run out of pee-cee's for your little isp? Or do you have to
wait until your buddy gets hired at his new ISP so you can move the
quake server?
No, I've spent all my time recently responding to email. <grin>
Seriously, I have two boxes sitting ithe corner of the server room,
waiting for me to load Linux on them...
Hmm... the name.boot file has it set off. I'll check it out.
Somehow I fear putting my DNS in the hands of someone who says "Hmm..."
over a named.boot file.
What do you say when reading one over that isn't doing quite what you
had in mind, "hoho!"?
Seriously, our schedule calls for 5 dedicated, non-recursive servers
up by next week this time, with T1 of better connectivity.
"Oh, we'll have quadruple this Real Soon Now(tm). We decided that it was
a Good Thing to release this project with a crappy server and crappy links..
but honest.. we're fixing it!"
Our root server operators got uppidy and shut down the zone as of a
couple hours from now, we didn't have a whole lot of time to "get it
right" 
We plan
full RFC2010 by the time we reach 5% visibility.
So.. never, right?
<grin>
I dont get it. Why wait until later to do things _right_?
Oh, we will probably be RFC2010 in a month or two, but until we have
serious hits happening, we aren't too worried about it. More
important things need to be resolved in our operations. Come on over
to the udns list and lend a hand.
Take care,
Ron
Jamie Rishaw wrote:
> Seriously, our schedule calls for 5 dedicated, non-recursive servers
> up by next week this time, with T1 of better connectivity.
"Oh, we'll have quadruple this Real Soon Now(tm). We decided that it was
a Good Thing to release this project with a crappy server and crappy links..
but honest.. we're fixing it!"
> We plan full RFC2010 by the time we reach 5% visibility.
So.. never, right?
I dont get it. Why wait until later to do things _right_?
Because we're not used to being members of organizations in which
major decisions are driven by short-notice ultimatums.
Because we had to act quickly when it became apparent that the
root servers were likely to be arbitrarily reloaded with a set of
TLDs less than the full set originally registered as eDNS TLDs.
Because we are used to organizations that provide stability and
reliability as key elements to foster an environment hospitable
to business.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard Shu
I would really appreciate it, as I'm sure may other subscribers
of the NANOG would, if you DNS combatants would take this discussion
elsewhere, to a more appropriate list. I'm on the verge of constructing
filters so that I don't have to see this cruft -- short of that, I'm
now considering unsubscribing to the list.
The signal/noise ratio has degenerated dramatically.
Please remove nanog@merit.edu from the CC: line.
- paul
Because the people who made eDNS TLDs resolve, the root server operators,
got tired of people who were claiming TLDs with no ability to register
in them, were collusively operated in violation of the charter, were being
held out as "businesses" when in fact said "businesses" didn't legally
exist under the laws of the state the "registry" claimed to be in, that some
of the "registries" were unable to even quote a *PRICE* over the phone for
registration (and it was nowhere to be found online either) and further
the roots refused to continue when it became apparent that the RAs
and Registries had no intent of resolving ANY of those problems.