[130867] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Hamelin)
Sun Oct 17 23:24:44 2010
In-Reply-To: <20101018031853.51F0F5C3EF5@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 20:24:30 -0700
From: Joe Hamelin <joe@nethead.com>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
That's why 3M registered mmm.com back in 1988.
--
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@vacati=
on.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 da=
ta
>> > > network. =A0I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone s=
ee
>> > > any issues with this?
>> >
>> > The domain-name starts with a digit, which is not really recommended, =
=A0RFC
>> 1034,
>> > due to the fact a valid actual hostname =A0cannot start with a digit,
>> > and, for example,
>> > some MTAs/MUAs, =A0that comply with earlier versions of standards stil=
l in us
>> e,
>> > will possibly have a problem =A0sending e-mail to the flat domain, eve=
n
>> > if the actual hostname is
>> > something legal such as mail.101100010100110.net.
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 if there is code that old still out there, it desrves to die=
.
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 the leading character restriction was lifted when the compan=
y
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 3com was created. =A0its been nearly 18 years since that adv=
ice
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 held true.
>>
>> > Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain
>> > name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29:
>> >
>> > <domain> ::=3D =A0<element> | <element> "." <domain>
>> > <element> ::=3D <name> | "#" <number> | "[" <dotnum> "]"
>> > <mailbox> ::=3D <local-part> "@" <domain>
>> > ...
>> > <name> ::=3D <a> <ldh-str> <let-dig>
>> > ...
>> > <a> ::=3D any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 in upper case and a through z in lower case
>> > <d> ::=3D any one of the ten digits 0 through 9
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 at least three times in the past decade, the issues of RFC 8=
21
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 vs Domain lables has come up on the DNSEXT mailing list in t=
he
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 IETF (or its predacessor). =A0 RFC 821 hostnames are not the
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 convention for Domain Labels, esp as we enter the age of
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 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). =A0If 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. =A0Yes this is spelt out in RFC 1035.
>
> There are lots of RFCs which confuse "domain name" with "domain
> style host name". =A0Or confuse "domain name" with "a host name stored
> in the DNS".
>
> Mark
>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 That 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 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 INTERNET: marka@is=
c.org
>
>
