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

Fri May 30 01:22:37 UTC 1997

I have already been labelled a kook.

C'mon DNS people. Please move your discussions elsewhere.....

On Thu, 29 May 1997, Ehud Gavron wrote:

> Will the Newdom, Edns, Udns, Ufp, Confederations, Federations,
> and morons alike please take it to your respective lists.
> 
> NANOG, as has been stated so often even you guys can get it,
> is for operations issues.  DNS "as is" is an operations issue.
> DNS "as you wish it were" is something for you to discuss till
> you're blue in the face.
> 
> I'm tired of this drivel, and you keep adding lists and idiots
> I can't killfile it fast enough.
> 
> Ehud
> 
> 
> >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
> 