Messages On Startup

[Kevin Darcy]

Mark Andrews wrote:

>>Barry Margolin wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>In article <cg3dbh$17bj$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
>>>Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Mark Andrews wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>>Well, technically, underscore is invalid in a "host name", and some 
>>>>>>ancient versions of BIND (like the buggy, insecure version you're using) 
>>>>>>actually try to enforce this restriction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Upgrade. Later versions of BIND gave up trying to police hostname 
>>>>>>restrictions.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>	By popular demand check-names is supported in BIND 9.3.
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>One can only hope that the default setting is sensible.
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>	The correct fix is to get rid of the illegal hostname.
>>>>>	If you want to be on the Internet you need to play by
>>>>>	the rules of the Internet.
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>Is BIND "the Internet"? Why then does it presume to enforce "the 
>>>>Internet"'s rules? The DNS protocol itself has no problems with 
>>>>underscores, and IMO that's all BIND should be concerned with. Not to 
>>>>mention the fact that BIND and DNS are also run on intranets where "the 
>>>>Internet"'s rules don't apply...
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>That's why there's a configuration option.  Since BIND is usually used 
>>>on Internet hosts, it's not unreasonable for the default setting to 
>>>match this use.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>"Usually"? I have 4 production nameservers serving DNS to the Internet 
>>and 50+ nameservers serving the intranet.  I think most enterprise 
>>customers have a similar ratio, or even more lopsided...
>>    
>>
>
>	And usually intranet's choose to follow the RFC's as well as
>	that is vendors manufacture products to.  That what they list
>	in there purchace requirements documents etc.
>
I've never seen strict RFC 952 compliance listed as a requirement for a 
vendor's product. In fact, many vendors use underscores in the names 
they use in examples, documentation, etc., and sometimes even hard-code 
underscored names into their products. From what I've seen, RFC 952's 
underscore restriction has been ignored for a long long time.

>	The fact that you are a exception does not change this.
>                                                                       
>
An exception to what? For administrative IT functions (payroll, 
accounting, office automation, groupware, etc.) we use the same vendors 
as everyone else. We just get a higher volume discount, that's all :-)

                                                                         
                                          - Kevin