Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM

Thu May 29 16:01:20 UTC 1997

At 08:11 AM 5/29/97 -0700, you wrote:
>mr. wolodkin,
>
>it is not possible to support multiple public sets of root name servers.
>the DNS protocol does not support it.  BIND does not support it.  what
>happens when you try is called "cachaphony."

It's physically possible. Just because you don't approve of it doesn't
make it impossible.

The set of servers popularly called the "legacy" roots wer once 
the only set. When Kashpureff first began alternic, the legacy
roots were now a subset, or, Alternic roots were a superset.

At any rate, they've been running for a year, and do work. YOu
have an odd sense of "not possible" and I suspect you are speaking
to either the political or financial layers of the protocol stack,
not one of the underltying ones.

>anyone who tries is harming the public internet user population with only
>their own gain (usually psychological, sometimes monetary) as justification.
>i call these people "pirates" and i mean it in the same sense as i would
>call you a pirate if you decided to broadcast on one of my local television
>channels since you thought your programming was better.  depending on radiuses
>i could get (a) a signal i didn't want or (b) a mixture of crap and no signal
>at all.

Cable. Direct satellite. Yout TV dial of 2 - 13 is obsolete Paul.

>there is no justification for eDNS, alterNIC, or any of these other pirates.
>they are in this for foolish and destructive reasons.

In your opinion, which is hardly neutral. Your better idea is ?

>DNS is a coherent, distributed, reliable database.  with one set of roots.

This was true two years ago, but not any more.

>i am not impressed with your apologist role here.

Show me the RFC that says "you can't do something on the net unless Paul
is impressed".

--
  "You can tell the Internet pioneers, because they're the ones with the
   bullet holes in their feet."  - BKR