Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
Jason Gunthorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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).