network name 101100010100110.net

Mon Oct 18 03:24:30 UTC 2010

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 at isc.org> wrote:
>
> In message <20101018024021.GC8924 at vacation.karoshi.com.>, bmanning at 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 at 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 at isc.org
>
>