IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Speermint] Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture

Duane <duane@e164.org> Tue, 30 May 2006 00:59 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FksaO-00084C-Tx; Mon, 29 May 2006 20:59:52 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FksaO-000847-A2 for speermint@ietf.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 20:59:52 -0400
Received: from [204.209.140.176] (helo=wodka.aus-biz.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FksaM-00008f-Vl for speermint@ietf.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 20:59:52 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (cpe-24-95-54-117.columbus.res.rr.com [24.95.54.117]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "Duane Groth", Issuer "CAcert Class 3 Root" (not verified)) by wodka.aus-biz.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 308685A11; Mon, 29 May 2006 20:59:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <447B98FA.6030703@e164.org>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 20:59:38 -0400
From: Duane <duane@e164.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060522)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: henry@pulver.com, speermint@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Speermint] Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture
References: <016d01c6837e$5e948ef0$2800a8c0@DSX400>
In-Reply-To: <016d01c6837e$5e948ef0$2800a8c0@DSX400>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a
Cc:
X-BeenThere: speermint@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the speermint working group <speermint.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint>, <mailto:speermint-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/speermint>
List-Post: <mailto:speermint@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:speermint-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint>, <mailto:speermint-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: speermint-bounces@ietf.org

Henry Sinnreich wrote:

> The authors of this paper represent those who think there is a big
> difference. Reasons include DNS caching conflicts with changing IP
> addresses, security, etc. 

We drop the TTL to between 1 minute and 10 depending on how static the 
number block is, so caching issues can easily be dealt with in most 
instances (not including broken configuration on caching servers).

> It would be interesting to learn why the 20 year old DNS 'as is' is
> considered to be good enough for eternity and any successor technology does
> not even merit a read, let alone reconsidering business evolution plans
> based on 1986 technology. Reminds us of SS7 indeed...

I think this is in the ball park of trying to replace email, and these 
technologies are ingrained into how people think operate rather then 
learning new technologies, not to mention they just work (if it ain't 
broke?)...

This kind of reminds me of an article I was reading some time ago about 
what it takes for a new technology to actually make it (kind of like 
HDD/DVD/CD etc verses something like the zip disk/jazz drive)... The 
authors conclusion was it had to be a factor of 10 better then the old 
technology or people just didn't bother...

-- 

Best regards,
  Duane

_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
Speermint@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email