nanog mailing list archives
Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
From: Jeremy <jbaino () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:30:58 -0500
"DK" may not be hierarchical, but "DK." is. If you try to resolve "DK" on it's own, many (most? all?) DNS clients will attach the search string/domain name of the local system in order to make it a FQDN. The same happens when you try and resolve a non-existent domain. Such as alskdiufwfeiuwdr3948dx.com, in wireshark I see the initial request followed by alskdiufwfeiuwdr3948dx.com.gateway.2wire.net. However if I qualify it with the trailing dot, it stops after the first lookup. DK. is a valid FQDN and should be considered hierarchical due to the dot being the root and anything before that is a branch off of the root. see RFC1034 -Jeremy On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Mark Andrews <marka () isc org> wrote:
In message <g339j59ywz.fsf () nsa vix com>, Paul Vixie writes:Adam Atkinson <ghira () mistral co uk> writes:It was a very long time ago, but I seem to recall being shownhttp://dk,the home page of Denmark, some time in the mid 90s. Must I be recalling incorrectly?no you need not must be. it would work as long as no dk.this or dk.that would be found first in a search list containing 'this' and 'that', where the default search list is normally the parent domain name of your own hostname (so for me on six.vix.com the search list would be vix.com and so as long as dk.vix.com did not exist then http://dk/ would reach"dk.")-- Paul Vixie KI6YSYDK should NOT be doing this. DK is *not* a hierarchical host name and the address record should not exist, RFC 897. The Internet stopped using simple host names in the early '80s. In addition to that it is a security issue similar to that described in RFC 1535. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka () isc org
Current thread:
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs, (continued)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Jay Ashworth (Jun 17)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Blake Dunlap (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Randy Bush (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Chris Adams (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs David Conrad (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Owen DeLong (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Richard Barnes (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Adam Atkinson (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Paul Vixie (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Mark Andrews (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Jeremy (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Mark Andrews (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Paul Vixie (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Jeff Kell (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Jay Ashworth (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs David Conrad (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Paul Vixie (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Michael Thomas (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Paul Vixie (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Doug Barton (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Paul Vixie (Jun 19)