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?
On Saturday night, Day Domes <daydomes@gmail.com> postulated:
I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
any issues with this?
It's truly unsigned?
(15 bit)
unsigned?
16 bit integers. Ok, a lame joke.
22694.NET and 58A6.NET are available. What are you trying to name?
A new network that we are going to use to connect all are global data
centers and also use to peer with other networks to push data to the
Internet
Technically, no.
But you probably fancy annoying people. I wouldn't imaging anyone typing
that right on the first attempt.
And imagine answering the phones...
- Matt
Matthew said: And imagine answering the phones...
Bender's Big Score.
Is this for Jewish Hospital (AS 22694)?
And many years ago I had jh.org, but domains were $70 back then and my
wife thought I had too many...
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 use,
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.
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
> 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 use,
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.
That said, the world was much simpler last century.
--bill
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,
A valid actual hostname can start with a digit. Many do.
I'm guessing 3com may have had something to do with
that trend.
RFC 1123 2.1 clarified that a couple of decades ago, so I doubt
you'll find any running software that doesn't agree.
and, for example,
some MTAs/MUAs, that comply with earlier versions of standards still in use,
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.Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain
name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29:
There are several less obsolete RFCs that specify email addresses,
they're all quite specific about what a valid hostname is in an email
sense. 5321 is the latest, I think, section 4.1.2.
Cheers,
Steve
> > 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 9at 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'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...
Joel said: and not just because minnestoaminingandmanufacturing.com is
hard to type...
Also back then you could only have eight letters in your domain name.
But it was free and only took 6-8 weeks to get.
>
> Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain
> name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29:
RFC 821 defines the syntax for mail domains, not domain names in general.
RFC 821 hostnames are not the convention for Domain Labels, esp as we
enter the age of Non-Ascii labels.
Host names are not mail domains. RFC 952 defined the syntax for host
names. RFC 1034 recommends that labels in the DNS follow either 822 or 952
syntax (which are mostly the same).
All of these were updated by RFC 1123 to allow leading digits.
Internationalized domain names do not affect the restrictions on the
syntax of what is put in the DNS.
Tony.
When BU joined the internet and promptly brought down about a third of
it with their host table entries one of the problems was a host named
3b (.bu.edu, it was an AT&T 3B5) which caused a 4bsd script to go into
an infinite loop filling roots (/tmp) which back then crashed systems.
Also, one-letter hostnames (a.bu.edu as an alias for bucsa.bu.edu,
etc.)
I know because basically it was my fault.
Day,
does anyone see any issues with this?
Please, I strongly urge you to consider the ergonomics in question.
That name is REALLY hard to read, spell, pronounce, type, recognize,
etc.
Agreed that there are no technical roadblocks, but again, please use
common sense and choose something that doesn't make everybody's life
more complicated. A domain name is something that sticks for many
years and is of daily use in many many areas, and even more when it is
for designating a transit ISP.
my 2 cents,
cl.
In article <20101018024021.GC8924@vacation.karoshi.com.?>, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com writes
the leading character restriction was lifted when the company
3com was created. its been nearly 18 years since that advice
held true.
And was the first all-numeric name 101.com (1995)?
Dalmatians, not binary five.