[130872] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Mon Oct 18 02:33:42 2010
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 23:33:13 -0700
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Joe Hamelin <joe@nethead.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim5Srgq-_KC6e3sGYWWxcwn5DzKEaV+_VYhYgCg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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, RFC
>>> 1034,
>>>> 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 us
>>> e,
>>>> 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 9
>>>
>>> at 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".
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>> 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 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
>>
>>
>
>
