Re: The Fortune 10,000 .COM Cluster

To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming at doorstep.unety.net>
Subject: Re: The Fortune 10,000 .COM Cluster
From: Karl Auerbach <karl at CaveBear.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:52:58 -0800 (PST)
Cc: "'ietf at ns.ietf.org'" <ietf at ns.ietf.org>
Delivery-date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 20:02:32 -0500
In-reply-to: <01BD5365.CE71AAC0@pc.unir.net>
Reply-to: Karl Auerbach <karl at CaveBear.com>

> Another place that .COM Clusters can be useful
> is when "censorship" is desired. One can imagine
> deploying a .COM Cluster that only had the Fortune
> 10,000 COMpany names in the data base.

Ummm, subsets are a really bad idea.  That will cause asymetrical
connectivity (or rather, assymetrical resolvability of names.)

We should chose not to follow that path.  As someone once said -- that way
lies madness. 

		--karl--

References:
- The Fortune 10,000 .COM Cluster
  - From: Jim Fleming

Prev by Date: Re: The Green Paper is One Small Component
Next by Date: Re: .COM Clusters are Not RSCs
Previous by thread: The Fortune 10,000 .COM Cluster
Next by thread: RE: The Fortune 10,000 .COM Cluster
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: The Fortune 10,000 .COM Cluster

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.