History of 22.214.171.124. What's the story?
jco at direwolf.com
Sun Feb 14 17:55:33 CST 2010
At the time I was involved it did have an SLA, and was considered critical infrastructure for Genuitity customers. Once we started to deploy 126.96.36.199, we gave customers time to swap over, but we started turning off our existing DNS servers.
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.
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.
More information about the NANOG