[131033] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Tue Oct 19 13:40:40 2010
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:40:09 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Nathan Eisenberg <nathan@atlasnetworks.us>
In-Reply-To: <8C26A4FDAE599041A13EB499117D3C28406262FC@ex-mb-2.corp.atlasnetworks.us>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 05:24:58PM +0000, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
> > I'm assuming we aren't making jokes here, but 3com.com was created in
> > 1986:
>
> I'm confused. 3com.com would not appear to be entirely numerical. Or maybe someone spiked my coffee this morning.
>
> Best Regards,
> Nathan Eisenberg
its not. the thread started with a response that claimed that LEADING
numerics were illegal per some old RFCs. I commented that 3com.com
was the "test case" that caused the relaxation of the original advice.
others has since followed up w/ a variety of observations.
--bill
