Re: national security

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: national security

To: Masataka Ohta <mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: national security
From: Joe Abley <Joe_Abley at isc.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:29:12 -0500
Cc: Paul Vixie <vixie at vix.com>, ietf at ietf.org, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>
In-reply-to: <3FD4DE37.7060706@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
References: <9EDF9BC8-2842-11D8-9581-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <g33cbx8lkt.fsf@sa.vix.com> <D3DF40E3-28AF-11D8-9581-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <5236C6A4-299A-11D8-985D-00039312C852@isc.org> <3FD4DE37.7060706@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org


On 8 Dec 2003, at 15:25, Masataka Ohta wrote:

I'm afraid F servers does not follow the intention of my original
proposal of anycast root servers.

This may well be the case (I haven't read your original proposal). Apologies if I gave the impression that I thought to the contrary.

Finally, using only a single address, F, does not provide any
real robustness.


Fortunately there are twelve other root nameservers.

Joe

Follow-Ups:
- Re: national security
  - From: Masataka Ohta

References:
- Re: national security
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: national security
  - From: Paul Vixie
- Re: national security
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: national security
  - From: Joe Abley
- Re: national security
  - From: Masataka Ohta

Prev by Date: ITU takes over?
Next by Date: Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security
Previous by thread: Re: national security
Next by thread: Re: national security
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.

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