IP addresses in NS records seem to be breaking hostname resolution
David Botham
dns at botham.net
Fri Jul 19 13:45:15 UTC 2002
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bind-users-bounce at isc.org [mailto:bind-users-bounce at isc.org] On
> Behalf Of Simon Waters
> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 4:24 AM
> To: undisclosed-recipients:
> Subject: Re: IP addresses in NS records seem to be breaking hostname
> resolution
>
>
> Mark_Andrews at isc.org wrote:
> >
> > Actually 209.44.8.1 isn't a hostname. Go read RFC 1123
again.
OK, then Chris's point is valid. Right? an NS record like:
@ IN NS 192.168.10.20.
Could legally be a basis to either reject the zone on load, and/or
reject the record as mal-formed and a name server refuse to cache it.
>
> 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