Makes me wonder if concern for routing table size is worrying about the right thing. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
Now you are thinking. :-) - ferg On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
Makes me wonder if concern for routing table size is worrying about the right thing.
-- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
Makes me wonder if concern for routing table size is worrying about the right thing.
Because obviously, the problems of scaling router memory and scaling DNS servers are the same kind? Yes, having many many new TLDs introduces new problems. (If you're not scared enough, I encourage you to go read the output of the Variant Issues Project. Full disclosure: I had a hand in.) Why are we talking about this non-news now? We all knew about three years ago, at the latest, that ICANN was planning to do this. If we didn't, shame on us. A
Why does this discussion have to always be "one or the other"? We have multiple problems here, friends. Focus. - ferg On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Andrew Sullivan <asullivan@dyn.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
Makes me wonder if concern for routing table size is worrying about the right thing.
Because obviously, the problems of scaling router memory and scaling DNS servers are the same kind?
Yes, having many many new TLDs introduces new problems. (If you're not scared enough, I encourage you to go read the output of the Variant Issues Project. Full disclosure: I had a hand in.) Why are we talking about this non-news now? We all knew about three years ago, at the latest, that ICANN was planning to do this. If we didn't, shame on us.
A
-- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
+10 On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster@gmail.com>wrote:
Why does this discussion have to always be "one or the other"?
We have multiple problems here, friends.
Focus.
- ferg
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Andrew Sullivan <asullivan@dyn.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
Makes me wonder if concern for routing table size is worrying about the right thing.
Because obviously, the problems of scaling router memory and scaling DNS servers are the same kind?
Yes, having many many new TLDs introduces new problems. (If you're not scared enough, I encourage you to go read the output of the Variant Issues Project. Full disclosure: I had a hand in.) Why are we talking about this non-news now? We all knew about three years ago, at the latest, that ICANN was planning to do this. If we didn't, shame on us.
A
-- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
-- Kyle Creyts Information Assurance Professional BSidesDetroit Organizer
participants (5)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Joe Abley -
Kyle Creyts -
Larry Sheldon -
Paul Ferguson