Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: oh, for goodness' sake.
From: "Forrest W. Christian" <forrestc () iMach com>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 22:46:15 -0600 (MDT)

On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

My vote's for NIC.INT.  I'm still searching for the correct RFC on INT
rules to see if that's appropriate, however.

Personally, I feel that with the new TLD's coming online, IMHO, there's no
reason why one more couldn't be added JUST FOR stuff like RIPE and ARIN
and the internic.  And the Root servers, etc.

Maybe .NIC or .REG or .CORE or .... ?

Set the requirements so that only those organizations providing "core"
internet services, which if break we're all screwed at least somewhat, can
get a delegation under them.

I can see one of the questions on the allocation form:

8) Estimate the number of messages which will be generated on the nanog
list if your existing Domain was placed in hold status.

- Forrest W. Christian (forrestc () imach com) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
iMach, Ltd., P.O. Box 5749, Helena, MT 59604      http://www.imach.com
Solutions for your high-tech problems.                  (406)-442-6648
----------------------------------------------------------------------




  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]