On Aug 5, 2009, at 10:20 PM, Erik Soosalu wrote:
Multiple systems end up with problems.
Yes, and again, I'm not advocating this approach. I just think it's
most likely where we're going to end up, long-term.
---
Roland D
On Aug 5, 2009, at 10:11 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
For all it's short comings the DNS and the single namespace it
brings is much better than
having a multitude of namespaces.
I agree with you, but I don't think this approach is going to persist
as the standard model.
Increasingly, trans
[mailto:rdobb...@arbor.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 10:44 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: DNS alternatives (was Re: Dan Kaminsky)
On Aug 5, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> We might have an alternative one day, but it's going to happen by
> accident, through generaliz
In message <825c8ac7-c01e-4934-92fd-e7b9e8091...@arbor.net>, Roland Dobbins wri
tes:
>
> On Aug 5, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> > We might have an alternative one day, but it's going to happen by
> > accident, through generalization of an internal naming service
> > employed b
On Aug 5, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
We might have an alternative one day, but it's going to happen by
accident, through generalization of an internal naming service
employed by a widely-used application.
Or even more likely, IMHO, that more and more applications will have
t
5 matches
Mail list logo
