RE: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed within the SRS
At 9:43 am -0700 7/18/01, Kristy McKee wrote:
>I am pleased to see them fairly balancing the load.
But is it fairly balanced?
If the bigger registrars are using more than 256k and 250 connections
during peak times of their normal operations, they're still being shafted.
And the specialist registrars that only start up for the drops then close
down again are now guaranteed the same bandwidth as big registrars such as
NSI and Tucows.
I would have thought the obvious things to do would be to average each
registrars bandwidth and connection usage over the 23.5 hours of a day that
the drop _isn't_ happening. and allow them that much bandwidth and
connections during the drop period.
That might fit the "equal access" requirement, and they're "equalling"
their non-drop access. :^)
Or perhaps Verisign should just modify their system so the drops occur
randomly during the day, as a load balancing measure?
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html