Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As I mentioned earlier I have written what I'm calling a negative summary > of the split proposal.
Every tangible point in this summary appears to rest on the assumption that we need to have multiple physical servers to support the non-free/main split. This doesn't make sense to me: all we really need are multiple DNS names for the two services. [If we're not going to guarantee different IP addresses for the distinct names then we need to guarantee that the paths are different, but That's Not A Big Deal.] We *should* have primary servers where the ip addresses are different, but that wouldn't have to happen right away (at least, not the way I understand the issue). -- Raul
