RE: Handling of External Host Objects: Single vs. Multi Copy Solutions (was: in the context of domain transfer)

["Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>]

Hi, Andy,

Actually we may be talking about the same thing, -:) What I meant by
enumerating (5)-(7) was to show that mass update does not work for
multi-copy model in those scenarios. And as such, it is just as good (or
bad) as the the server-centric single-copy model. In other words, mass
update _only_ work in the case of _complete_ external-to-external host
rename. It is the only advantage that I heard so far, but came with so many
baggages.

--Hong

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:andrew@libertyrms.info]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 10:22 AM
To: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'
Subject: Re: Handling of External Host Objects: Single vs. Multi Copy
Solu tions (was: in the context of domain transfer)


On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 06:37:34PM -0500, Liu, Hong wrote:
> (5) Partial updates. 
[. . .]
> nameservers provided by Y are also external hosts. Then registrar R
> cannot just rename X's nameservers to Y's since A's domains are
> still using X's nameservers. So R has to update B's domains
> one-by-one.

I truly do not understand this objection.  This is no different than
if B decides to change name servers using internal hosts, if someone
else is using the host.  (Objection 6 seems to me to be the same:
it's just not a real objection.  Yes, it's a pain to change the
nameservers of a large number of domains.  There's a reason managers
of large networks avoid doing so.)

A
-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS                           Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info>                              M2P 2A8
                                         +1 416 646 3304 x110