uDNS Root Name Servers Taking Shape - on a couple ISDN lines

Fri May 30 00:24:41 UTC 1997

kook fight in the parking lot at 3 o'clock after school!

On Fri, 30 May 1997, Ron Kimball wrote:

> On Thu, 29 May 1997 18:03:13 -0500, Karl wrote:
> 
> >> ;; ADDITIONAL RECORDS:
> >> root.starfire.douglas.ma.us.	86400	A	208.195.108.8
> >Multi-homed condition unknown and suspect due to truncated BGP path.
> 
> Yup, not multihomed until the new router comes in.  :-(
> 
> >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.
> 
> > AND IS NOT A TRUE ROOT.
> 
> Says you, the grand high holy keeper of the ONE TRUE ROOTS.  Ha!
> 
> >> hp.manhattan.com.	172800	A	199.103.194.137
> >Aggregated by (and complete path from) Open Advisors.  Appears to be
> >multi-homed.
> 
> Yup.
> 
> >Approximate bandwidth to this point on the network: 65.28kbps, or a 
> >					single-channel ISDN equivalent.
> 
> You really should check your lines Karl, a multihomed server on a
> single channel ISDN, I don't think so...
> 
> >**** NOTICE:
> >THIS NAMESERVER IS RUNNING WITH RECURSION
> 
> Hmm... the name.boot file has it set off.  I'll check it out.
> 
>  AND IS NOT A TRUE ROOT.
> 
> <yawn>
> 
> >> DONTSERF.MAKEWAVES.NET.	172800	A	204.94.43.1
> >Alternic under a different name, operated by Diane Boling, and running
> >with both nameservers on the same subnet.  Linked to Seanet, which appears 
> >to be multihomed.
> 
> Yup.
> 
> >Approximate bandwidth to this point on the network:  629kbps (my god, they
> >have one root with a  fractional T1 worth of bandwidth available!)
> 
> Well, I guess your lines came back up! <grin>
> 
> >**** NOTICE:
> >THIS NAMESERVER IS ALSO RUNNING WITH RECURSION ENABLED
> 
> could be.
> 
>  AND IS NOT A TRUE ROOT.
> 
> <yawn>
> 
> >I rest my case.  Only one of these has anything approaching reasonable 
> >connectivity, all appear to be off single-point failure circuits (except
> >possibly manhattan.com), and all are running in non-RFC2010 mode.
> 
> Yah, we really need RFC2010 servers to run 1/2% of the internet - NOT!
> 
> Seriously, our schedule calls for 5 dedicated, non-recursive servers
> up by next week this time, with T1 of better connectivity.  We plan
> full RFC2010 by the time we reach 5% visibility.   Feel free to market
> your system's RFC2010 compliance as an absolute must for servers that
> handle a fraction of a percent of the internet's DNS requests, I'd be
> surprised if any of the "internet aware" people on these lists you are
> posting to care...
> 
> Take care,
> Ron Kimball for the uDNS council
> 