nanog mailing list archives
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 23:33:13 -0700
On 10/17/10 8:24 PM, Joe Hamelin wrote:
That's why 3M registered mmm.com back in 1988.
and not just because minnestoaminingandmanufacturing.com is hard to type... they've since officially change the name of the company to 3m...
-- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474 On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Mark Andrews <marka () isc org> wrote:In message <20101018024021.GC8924 () vacation karoshi com.>, bmanning () vacation kar oshi.com writes:On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:16:04PM -0500, James Hess wrote:On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes <daydomes () gmail com> wrote:I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this?The domain-name starts with a digit, which is not really recommended, RFC1034,due to the fact a valid actual hostname cannot start with a digit, and, for example, some MTAs/MUAs, that comply with earlier versions of standards still in use,will possibly have a problem sending e-mail to the flat domain, even if the actual hostname is something legal such as mail.101100010100110.net.if there is code that old still out there, it desrves to die. the leading character restriction was lifted when the company 3com was created. its been nearly 18 years since that advice held true.Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29: <domain> ::= <element> | <element> "." <domain> <element> ::= <name> | "#" <number> | "[" <dotnum> "]" <mailbox> ::= <local-part> "@" <domain> ... <name> ::= <a> <ldh-str> <let-dig> ... <a> ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z in upper case and a through z in lower case <d> ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9at least three times in the past decade, the issues of RFC 821 vs Domain lables has come up on the DNSEXT mailing list in the IETF (or its predacessor). RFC 821 hostnames are not the convention for Domain Labels, esp as we enter the age of Non-Ascii labels.Correct but if you want to be able to send email to them then you *also* need to follow RFC 821 as modified by RFC 1123 so effectively you are limited to "<LD><LDH>*<LD>*{.<LD><LDH>*<LD>*}+". If you want to buy "!#$%^&*.com" go ahead but please don't expect anyone to change their mail software to support "bill@!#$%^&*.com" as a email address. The DNS has very liberal labels (any octet stream up to 63 octets in length). If you want to store information about a host, in the DNS, using its name then you still need to abide by the rules for naming hosts. Yes this is spelt out in RFC 1035. There are lots of RFCs which confuse "domain name" with "domain style host name". Or confuse "domain name" with "a host name stored in the DNS". MarkThat said, the world was much simpler last century. --bill-- -Jh-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka () isc org
Current thread:
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net, (continued)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Day Domes (Oct 16)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Joe Hamelin (Oct 16)
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Day Domes (Oct 16)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Day Domes (Oct 16)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Per Carlson (Oct 16)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Matthew Palmer (Oct 16)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Joe Hamelin (Oct 16)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Matthew Palmer (Oct 16)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net James Hess (Oct 17)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net bmanning (Oct 17)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Mark Andrews (Oct 17)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Joe Hamelin (Oct 17)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Joel Jaeggli (Oct 17)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Joe Hamelin (Oct 18)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Barry Shein (Oct 18)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net bmanning (Oct 17)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Tony Finch (Oct 18)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Roland Perry (Oct 19)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net David Shaw (Oct 19)
- RE: network name 101100010100110.net Deepak Jain (Oct 19)
- RE: network name 101100010100110.net Nathan Eisenberg (Oct 19)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net bmanning (Oct 19)
- RE: network name 101100010100110.net Tony Finch (Oct 20)