Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters?

steve pirk [egrep] steve at pirk.com
Tue Oct 11 16:19:50 CDT 2011


Hahahahaha! That is awesome.

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 17:50, <bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com> wrote:

>  back in the day,
>
>  abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz1234567890ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ.ca.us.
>
>  existed to test the length of DNS label.  circa 1992
>
>  ^b.com also existed (yes, we considered ^p)
>
>
>  the heady days of DNS evolution!
>
> /bill
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 06:16:46PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > NSI was never the only registrar. They were just the only registrar
> > for COM, ORG, NET, EDU, and possibly a few other TLDs, but,
> > they were, for example, never the registrar for US or many other
> > CCTLDs.
> >
> > Therefore, it was not internet wide, though I will admit that it did
> > cover most of the widely known gTLDs.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > On Oct 7, 2011, at 4:45 PM, steve pirk [egrep] wrote:
> >
> > > It turns out it was an artificial limitation on Network Solution's
> part.
> > > Being the only registrar at the time, it was pretty much internet wide
> at
> > > that point, contrary to the RFC spec.
> > >
> > > What was so funny was that someone got Internic/Network Solutions to up
> the
> > > limit. Apparently just to save some money on reprinting movie
> posters... ok,
> > > so they would have had to change some trailers...
> > > ;-]
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 16:39, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Joe Hamelin <joe at nethead.com>
> wrote:
> > >>> I remember tales from when there was an eight character limit.  But
> that
> > >> was
> > >>> back when you didn't have to pay for them and they assigned you a
> class-c
> > >>> block automatically.  Of course it took six weeks to register because
> > >> there
> > >>> was only one person running the registry.
> > >>
> > >> You may be referring to a limitation of a certain OS regarding a
> > >> hostname; or some network's policy.
> > >> But the DNS protocol itself never had a limit of 8 characters.
> > >> When we are talking about the contents of "A" record names,
> > >>
> > >> I would refer you to
> > >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2181.txt
> > >> "RFC 2181
> > >> Clarifications to the DNS Specification R. Elz, R. Bush
> > >> [ July 1997 ] (TXT = 36989) (Updates RFC1034, RFC1035, RFC1123)
> > >> (Updated-By RFC4035, RFC2535, RFC4343, RFC4033, RFC4034, RFC5452)
> > >> (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: int, WG: dnsind) "
> > >>
> > >> "
> > >> Elz & Bush                  Standards Track                    [Page
> 12]
> > >> ...
> > >> Occasionally it is assumed that the Domain Name System serves only
> > >>  the purpose of mapping Internet host names to data, and mapping
> > >>  Internet addresses to host names.  This is not correct, the DNS is a
> > >>  general (if somewhat limited) hierarchical database, and can store
> > >>  almost any kind of data, for almost any purpose.
> > >> ...
> > >> 11. Name syntax
> > >> "
> > >> The length of any one label is limited to between 1 and 63 octets.  A
> > >> full domain
> > >>  name is limited to 255 octets (including the separators).  The zero
> > >>  length full name is defined as representing the root of the DNS tree,
> > >>  and is typically written and displayed as ".".  Those restrictions
> > >>  aside, any binary string whatever can be used as the label of any
> > >>  resource record.
> > >> "
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> -JH
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > steve pirk
> > > refiamerica.org
> > > "father... the sleeper has awakened..." paul atreides - dune
> > > kexp.org member august '09
> >
>
>
>


-- 
steve pirk
yensid
"father... the sleeper has awakened..." paul atreides - dune
kexp.org member august '09 - Google+ pirk.com


More information about the NANOG mailing list