On 4/12/13 9:29 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> Whatever criticisms you can lay at the feet of ICANN,
> especially in recent years, "greed for new TLDs" is not one of them.
Hmmm. Many people would disagree with that, based on episodes like this:
http://domainincite.com/5212-calls-to-fix-new-gtld-revol
Hello,
if someone from nic.mil (AS721 and/or AS27064) is present please contact
me off-list. I have a persistent routing issue from your network to one
of my prefixes at AS29259 that I can't get cleared, even by bouncing the
prefix. whois-contact (hostmas...@nic.mil) did not answer.
Thanks,
Bernh
On 3/21/13, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> Does it sound too complicated and pointy? Yes, it's not exactly
> trivial, and not as good as BGP, but better than having 300ms latency
> from a simple round-robin.
It sounds like you are asking about Geolocation, when what you really
want is latency-b
If this is for http and similar user-accessed (not machine accessed)
traffic, you could do what some large manufacturers and shipping companies
do: Provide a (relatively) low-bandwidth "Select where you are in the
world" global landing page which then redirects to a different
domain/subdomain for e
4 matches
Mail list logo
