all digits non-FQDN won't resolve!

[Farid Hamjavar]

On 23 Dec 2001 phn at icke-reklam.ipsec.nu wrote:

> Date: 23 Dec 2001 08:57:43 GMT
> From: phn at icke-reklam.ipsec.nu
> To: comp-protocols-dns-bind at moderators.isc.org
> Newsgroups: comp.protocols.dns.bind
> Subject: Re: all digits  non-FQDN won't resolve!
>
>
> Farid Hamjavar <hamjavar at unm.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > bind 8.2.5 aix 4.3.3
>
> > Greetings,
>
> > This post is not about hostname syntax, as far as I know,
> > hostnames with all digits are valid (e.g. 123450987.foobar.org)
> Nope they arn't

all digit host names  appear to be very legal.


RFC952 says:
   <name>  ::=3D <let>[*[<let-or-digit-or-hyphen>]<let-or-digit>]


RFC1123 says:
  The syntax of a legal Internet host name was specified in RFC-952
  [DNS:4].  One aspect of host name syntax is hereby changed: the
  restriction on the first character is relaxed to allow either a
  letter or a digit.  Host software MUST support this more liberal
  syntax.




Farid
UNM






> RFC952 is still valid, the reason is clarity, a hostname
> consisting of digits-only could be interpreted as an address.
>
>
>
> > We have this strange behavior on a handful of our hosts
> > whose name happen to be made up of all digits.
>
> > nslookup and host and dig all behave in this
> > strange way:
>
>
> > if host is looked up in non-FQDN,  query fails and
> > no answer is returned. However, if in FQDN format,
> > everything is OK.
>
>
> > So two questions:
>
> > 1] Why this behavior for hosts whose name is all  digits?
> The fully-numeric hostname is misinterpreted. Change your habits.
>
> > 2] Why this behavior can not be produced for
> >    other hostnames?
>
>
> > Thanks,
> > Farid
> > UNM
>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter H=E5kanson
>         IPSec  Sverige      (At the Riverside of Gothenburg, home of Volv=
o)
>            Sorry about my e-mail address, but i'm trying to keep spam out=
=2E
> =09   Remove "icke-reklam" and it works.
>