nanog mailing list archives
Re: Question to Google
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 13:43:02 -0400
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Damian Menscher via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote:
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer () nic fr> wrote:On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 07:55:41AM -0700, Damian Menscher <damian () google com> wrote a message of 82 lines which said:Can you point to published studies where the root and .com server operators analyzed Todd's questions?For the root, the most comprehensive one is probably SAC 18 <www.icann.org/committees/security/sac018.pdf> A good summary is <www.icann.org/en/meetings/lisbon/presentation-woolf-ssac-28mar07.pdf>Thanks for sharing. From my quick read, it looks like this was a careful analysis of the expected impact, not a review of the actual impact. It reminds me of an instructive joke: "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." also, a BUNCH has changed since 2007... with respect to the ipv4/ipv6
landscape.
Current thread:
- Re: Question to Google, (continued)
- Re: Question to Google Randy Bush (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Todd Underwood (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Matt Mathis via NANOG (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Todd Underwood (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Bjørn Mork (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Stephane Bortzmeyer (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Christopher Morrow (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Damian Menscher via NANOG (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Stephane Bortzmeyer (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Damian Menscher via NANOG (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Christopher Morrow (May 15)
