On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:55 PM, John Orthoefer wrote: > At the time I was involved it did have an SLA, and was considered critical > infrastructure for Genuitity customers. Once we started to deploy 4.2.2.1, > we gave customers time to swap over, but we started turning off our existing > DNS servers.
Sorry for the confusion, I should have said "for non-customers of L3". I was responding the statement that the name servers were controlled by "*one* external route". If you are a customer, IGP matters, not BGP, and SLAs obviously are a different situation. For people who are not customers, SLAs are unusual. -- TTFN, patrick > One reason we did it was that we kept having to deploy more servers, and > getting customers to swing there hosts over to the new machines was all but > impossible. With NetNews, and SMTP we used a Cisco Distributed Director. > But we needed another solution for DNS. > > johno > > On Feb 14, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > >>> >> >> It's an open recursive name server, it is free, has no SLA, and is not >> critical infrastructure. >> >> >> > >
