What's the REAL DEAL with Underscores in BIND8.X?

[Joseph S D Yao]

Kevin Darcy cried out:
> What cost-justifications could there possibly be for such a forced
> migration? "RFC compliance" doesn't mean a hell of a lot to a beancounter;
> where's the money? And we're not talking chump change either: we have over
> 7,000+ underscored names in our DNS database here, thanks to BIND's longstanding
> permissiveness.
> 
> Separating underscore-checks from other kinds of name-checking within BIND would
> seem to be a far more practical solution to this "problem", at least until
> RFC 1035's ban on underscores can be officially obsoleted on the basis that the
> stated justification for it -- migration from the HOSTS.TXT file -- has long
> since passed.

If you had READ the previous posts, then you would know that it IS
separately allowable in two separate flavours.  ;-)

However, allowing it means that systems which take RFCs seriously -
which one would hope would include the majority of systems on the
Internet - might be completely inaccessible from your systems!  And
vice-versa.

Reality checkers - don't flame me, I did say "HOPE"!  And, "MIGHT".

--
Joe Yao				jsdy at cospo.osis.gov - Joseph S. D. Yao
COSPO/OSIS Computer Support					EMT-B
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is not an official statement of COSPO policies.