[35472] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Namespace conflicts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Clayton Fiske)
Fri Mar 9 13:31:58 2001
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 10:04:32 -0800
From: Clayton Fiske <clay@bloomcounty.org>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@dixon.delong.sj.ca.us>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010309100431.G59529@bloomcounty.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <200103091721.JAA05719@irkutsk.delong.sj.ca.us>; from owen@dixon.delong.sj.ca.us on Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:21:50AM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:21:50AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:10:09AM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin mailed:
> > > In my area of NJ, virtually every town's "obvious" .com domain names were
> > > grabbed by one of two competing would-be service providers. They had
> > > absolutely no town-specific content -- but if the town wanted a Web
> > > site, they had no choice but to deal with these folks. I have no major
[snip]
> > Uh, why couldn't the town just use <name>.nj.us or whatever the city specific
> > code was long ago and far way.
>
> No. However, they could use ci.<name>.nj.us, and that's where I usually go
> if I'm looking for a particular city's web site.
>
> The reason for this distinction is to support things like:
>
> ci.alameda.ca.us City of Alameda
> co.alameda.ca.us County of Alameda
> joesshoes.alameda.ca.us Joe's Shoe Shop in Alameda, CA
>
> etc. There's an RFC that spells all this out (1680 comes to mind, but not
> sure that's the right number).
RFC1480 seems to be the one.
-c
