History of 4.2.2.2. What's the story?

Mon Feb 15 00:06:27 UTC 2010

On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:55 PM, John Orthoefer wrote:

> 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. 

Sorry for the confusion, I should have said "for non-customers of L3".

I was responding the statement that the name servers were controlled by "*one* external route".  If you are a customer, IGP matters, not BGP, and SLAs obviously are a different situation.  For people who are not customers, SLAs are unusual.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 