From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Dec  9 11:04:58 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA07467
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 1995 11:04:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu (root@leibniz.math.psu.edu [146.186.130.2])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA07462
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat, 9 Dec 1995 11:04:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hausdorff.math.psu.edu (cross@hausdorff.math.psu.edu [146.186.132.5]) by leibniz.math.psu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA21655; Sat, 9 Dec 1995 14:04:53 -0500
Received: from localhost (cross@localhost) by hausdorff.math.psu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA00238; Sat, 9 Dec 1995 14:04:52 -0500
Message-Id: <199512091904.OAA00238@hausdorff.math.psu.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.4 10/10/95
To: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>
cc: cross@math.psu.edu (Dan Cross), p.richards@elsevier.co.uk,
        jkh@time.cdrom.com, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: A call for DNS secondaries to server for <dom>.freebsd.org 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 09 Dec 1995 00:05:40 +0100."
             <199512082305.AAA18506@keltia.freenix.fr> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 1995 14:04:51 -0500
From: Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> Forget about it in France.  A new domain  after the first  one that you get
> with your provider  will cost you between   $200/y and $600/y  depending on
> whether he (the  provider)  has paid  the $6000  fee  to be  in  the FR-NIC
> council or not.

Yikes!

> In other words, forget about freebsd.org.fr.  I don't even think they would
> accept it as  they ask the name  to be a registered trade  mark in order to
> reduce name space pollution in .fr.

Hmm..  forget it, then...

Another point that I hadn't thought of that Dave Barr pointed out to me was
that a lot of counties don't use the standard convention for domain naming,
that is, in England that use *.co.uk instead of *.com.uk.  Thus, it would turn
into a big mess with the country level authorities.  Another thing that Dave
pointed out to me was that DNS traffic isn't really all that taxing, so the
benefits would be minimal.  :-)

Given that, I think that Jordan's original idea of splitting things up into
*.<country>.freebsd.org is preferable....  It would be nice to reduce
traffic overall (hey, every little bit helps) but it's just too complicated,
not to mention expensive.  :-(

	- Dan C.