On Tuesday, February 18, 1997 4:16 AM, Brian Tackett[SMTP:cym@acrux.net] wrote: @ On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ <snip> @ @ I don't see what this "debate" has to do with North American Network @ *Operation*, as opposed to politics :P @ @ Brian, I would think that the members of NANOG would understand that the Root Name Servers they use are critical to their operations. This is especially true if several people on the NANOG list report that they are having operational problems with the Root Name Servers. As a "group", you might want to consider the following questions... 1. Do NANOG members all support one confederation of Root Name Servers ? 2. Have NANOG members converted to the NEW TRUE Root Name Servers ? 3. Are NANOG members mixing legacy Root Name Servers with entries for the NEW TRUE Root Name Servers ? 4. Is NANOG as a group working with the U.S. Government and the National Science Foundation (NSF) on a transition plan for the NSF/InterNIC now that we are approaching the last 12 months of that contract period ? 5. Does NANOG support any Root Name Servers ? If so, are those TRUE Root Name Servers that meet IETF RFC recommendations ? 6. Do NANOG members use any common network management software to make sure that the Root Name Servers they use are in synch, are checked regularly, are coherent, etc. ? 7. Does NANOG have a transition plan to IPv6 and does it address Root Name Servers using IPv6 addressing ? 8. Does NANOG sponsor any educational programs for any or all of the above ? P.S. NANOG's address is "nanog" not "nanon"... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming@unety.net JimFleming@unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)