This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
RV: [dns-wg] DNS migration draft
- Previous message (by thread): RV: [dns-wg] DNS migration draft
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] DNS migration draft - new version
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Fernando Garcia
fgarcia at eurocomercial.es
Mon Sep 20 15:51:55 CEST 2004
Hi everybody On 18/9/04 01:16, "Brad Knowles" <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org> wrote: >> The problem in your phrase is "network administrator ensures.. Outgoing >> packets are routed via the appropiate provider", this usually means "source >> routing" (I can paint many scenarios with this meaning), a not so simple >> task and the person -network administrator- that will use this document (I >> hope) is not a very qualified technician, if she/he is qualified, she/he >> wouldn't need this document. > > The issue is that there's not really anything we can do to fix > this problem. If their administrators are not minimally competent, > there is nothing that you can do with any written document that can > help, and indeed you are likely to make a bad situation worse by > overwhelming them with procedures and policies that they are unlikely > to understand. > > I think the principle needs to be kept as simple as possible, and > the resulting document should be kept as short as possible. Good point. Jim said the same, so we probably should cut or split the document. I think this is something that must be speak in the wg on Thursday. BTW, mi personal opinion is that "source routing" doesnt fit in the "simple" category. I know a lot more people that feel comfortable with DNS but doesnt know source routing (but this is my personal opinion). > Changes should be kept to a minimum, yes. However, I don't think > we can assume that the Registrar will automatically screw up > everything, every time. Simple sets of changes should be no problem, > even if they need to be done more than once. Not necesarily screw up, but sometimes delay. The spanish NIC used to have a waiting queue of one week. 1 change= 1 week delay, 2 changes=2 weeks delay. (I think they have improve now, but I can guarantee the same for all the NIC under the RIPE umbrella). Regards, Fernando -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Fernando Garcia - fgarcia at eurocomercial.es Eurocomercial Informática y Comunicaciones 91 435 96 87 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
- Previous message (by thread): RV: [dns-wg] DNS migration draft
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] DNS migration draft - new version
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]