nanog mailing list archives
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
From: David Shaw <dshaw () jabberwocky com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:39:06 -0400
On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In article <20101018024021.GC8924 () vacation karoshi com.?>, bmanning () vacation karoshi com writesthe leading character restriction was lifted when the company 3com was created. its been nearly 18 years since that advice held true.And was the first all-numeric name 101.com (1995)? Dalmatians, not binary five.
I always thought it was 2600.com (03-Feb-1994 according to whois). David
Current thread:
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net, (continued)
- 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 James Hess (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)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Roland Perry (Oct 19)