Randy,
I guess I've just become too cynical about what marketing folks will
do. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps no ISP's marketing folks would say
"since we run one of the nameservers for <blah>, it is obvious that
responses to requests to <blah> would be better than for our
competitors." or "since we run one of the nameservers for <blah>, our
network is obviously better than our competitor who doesn't." (regardless
of how true such statements might be).
Rgds,
-drc
At 09:57 AM 12/11/2000 -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
>bill said they would, but did not substantiate this with the merest example.
>hard to provide a counterexample to a non-existent example.
>
>but, to make trouble, as a competitor, i would have no problem with, e.g.,
>uunet having a root server near its edge with its peers.
>
>randy, who likes having money near mouths
>
>
> > Are you suggesting that marketing folk would not take advantage of such a
> > situation?
> >
> > Rgds,
> > -drc
> >
> > At 04:23 PM 12/10/2000 -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> > > > % If a name server is hosted with an ISP, does that give the ISP a
> > > commercial
> > > > % advantage in anyway, for example, in marketing, or in negotiating
> peering
> > > > % agreements, or similar?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, hosting a server does provide a commercial advantage. There
> > > > is no way to escape it.
> > > >
> > > > This concern was what drove the placement of the four additional
> > > > root servers that were created in 1995. Many ISPs expressed
> > > > interest in hosting. The principle reason was that it provided
> > > > a competative advantage, hence the model that was chosen was to
> > > > have one entity, usually a membership or constituency based
> > > > entity operate the node, with physical placement being directed
> > > > by short RTTs within a region and good connectivity to the
> > > > other servers for the domain.
> > >
> > >i can't find the part of your message which describes the commercial
> > >advantage.
> > >
> > >randy
> >
