IP addresses in NS records seem to be breaking hostname resolution
Simon Waters
Simon at wretched.demon.co.uk
Fri Jul 19 08:23:59 UTC 2002
Mark_Andrews at isc.org wrote:
>
> Actually 209.44.8.1 isn't a hostname. Go read RFC 1123 again.
Okay I'm always one to try and understand RFC's
Urm there seems to be a typo in the reference in section 2.1.
"(see section 6.1.2.4)" - urm - maybe there is some subtlety of
compression that I'm missing, but I don't see how compression
affects the legality of hostnames.
> since at least the highest-level component label will be alphabetic.
Ah ha they seem to mandate that TLD's must have an alphabetic
character in - do ICANN know this ;)
More information about the bind-users
mailing list