RE: network name 101100010100110.net
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Nathan Eisenberg wrote: I'm assuming we aren't making jokes here, but 3com.com was created in 1986: I'm confused. 3com.com would not appear to be entirely numerical. Or maybe someone spiked my coffee this morning. Once leading digits became permitted, the syntax was relaxed to allow all-numeric labels. See RFC 1123. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/ HUMBER THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND: NORTH BACKING WEST OR NORTHWEST, 5 TO 7, DECREASING 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6 LATER IN HUMBER AND THAMES. MODERATE OR ROUGH. RAIN THEN FAIR. GOOD.
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com wrote: I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this? Two helpful rules of thumb when picking a domain name: 1. Minimize spoken syllables. 2. Does it spell like it sounds? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
In article 201010190123.o9j1njra013...@mail.r-bonomi.com, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com writes Not to mention the fact that the company was originally _named_ Minnesota Mining Manufacturing, and that '3M' was *just* a logo and trademark. I recall that in the UK, before Nominet deregulated the name space, it was forbidden to have a domain name which wasn't virtually identical to your company name. Product names and trademarks weren't allowed. The example used at the time was you can have kelloggs.co.uk, but not cornflakes.co.uk. 3m.co.uk wasn't registered until 1997 (a year after Nominet's birth). -- Roland Perry
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Roland Perry wrote: In article 20101018024021.gc8...@vacation.karoshi.com.?, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com writes the leading character restriction was lifted when the company 3com was created. its been nearly 18 years since that advice held true. And was the first all-numeric name 101.com (1995)? Dalmatians, not binary five. I always thought it was 2600.com (03-Feb-1994 according to whois). David
RE: network name 101100010100110.net
On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Roland Perry wrote: In article 20101018024021.gc8...@vacation.karoshi.com.?, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com writes the leading character restriction was lifted when the company 3com was created. its been nearly 18 years since that advice held true. And was the first all-numeric name 101.com (1995)? Dalmatians, not binary five. I always thought it was 2600.com (03-Feb-1994 according to whois). I'm assuming we aren't making jokes here, but 3com.com was created in 1986: Domain Name: 3COM.COM Registrar: SAFENAMES LTD Whois Server: whois.safenames.net Referral URL: http://www.safenames.net Name Server: DNS2.IDP365.NET Name Server: NS1.3COM.COM Name Server: NS2.3COM.COM Status: ok Updated Date: 05-oct-2010 Creation Date: 11-dec-1986 Expiration Date: 10-dec-2013 If I've missed the joke, sorry. :) Deepak
RE: network name 101100010100110.net
I'm assuming we aren't making jokes here, but 3com.com was created in 1986: I'm confused. 3com.com would not appear to be entirely numerical. Or maybe someone spiked my coffee this morning. Best Regards, Nathan Eisenberg
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 05:24:58PM +, Nathan Eisenberg wrote: I'm assuming we aren't making jokes here, but 3com.com was created in 1986: I'm confused. 3com.com would not appear to be entirely numerical. Or maybe someone spiked my coffee this morning. Best Regards, Nathan Eisenberg its not. the thread started with a response that claimed that LEADING numerics were illegal per some old RFCs. I commented that 3com.com was the test case that caused the relaxation of the original advice. others has since followed up w/ a variety of observations. --bill
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
On 10/17/10 8:24 PM, Joe Hamelin wrote:
That's why 3M registered mmm.com back in 1988.
and not just because minnestoaminingandmanufacturing.com is hard to type...
they've since officially change the name of the company to 3m...
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 20101018024021.gc8...@vacation.karoshi.com.,
bmann...@vacation.kar
oshi.com writes:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:16:04PM -0500, James Hess wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data
network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
any issues with this?
The domain-name starts with a digit, which is not really recommended, RFC
1034,
due to the fact a valid actual hostname cannot start with a digit,
and, for example,
some MTAs/MUAs, that comply with earlier versions of standards still in us
e,
will possibly have a problem sending e-mail to the flat domain, even
if the actual hostname is
something legal such as mail.101100010100110.net.
if there is code that old still out there, it desrves to die.
the leading character restriction was lifted when the company
3com was created. its been nearly 18 years since that advice
held true.
Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain
name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29:
domain ::= element | element . domain
element ::= name | # number | [ dotnum ]
mailbox ::= local-part @ domain
...
name ::= a ldh-str let-dig
...
a ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z
in upper case and a through z in lower case
d ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9
at least three times in the past decade, the issues of RFC 821
vs Domain lables has come up on the DNSEXT mailing list in the
IETF (or its predacessor). RFC 821 hostnames are not the
convention for Domain Labels, esp as we enter the age of
Non-Ascii labels.
Correct but if you want to be able to send email to them then you
*also* need to follow RFC 821 as modified by RFC 1123 so effectively
you are limited to LDLDH*LD*{.LDLDH*LD*}+.
If you want to buy !#$%^*.com go ahead but please don't expect
anyone to change their mail software to support b...@!#$%^*.com
as a email address.
The DNS has very liberal labels (any octet stream up to 63 octets
in length). If you want to store information about a host, in the
DNS, using its name then you still need to abide by the rules for
naming hosts. Yes this is spelt out in RFC 1035.
There are lots of RFCs which confuse domain name with domain
style host name. Or confuse domain name with a host name stored
in the DNS.
Mark
That said, the world was much simpler last century.
--bill
--
-Jh
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
Joel said: and not just because minnestoaminingandmanufacturing.com is hard to type... Also back then you could only have eight letters in your domain name. But it was free and only took 6-8 weeks to get. -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:16:04PM -0500, James Hess wrote: Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29: RFC 821 defines the syntax for mail domains, not domain names in general. RFC 821 hostnames are not the convention for Domain Labels, esp as we enter the age of Non-Ascii labels. Host names are not mail domains. RFC 952 defined the syntax for host names. RFC 1034 recommends that labels in the DNS follow either 822 or 952 syntax (which are mostly the same). All of these were updated by RFC 1123 to allow leading digits. Internationalized domain names do not affect the restrictions on the syntax of what is put in the DNS. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/ HUMBER THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND: NORTH BACKING WEST OR NORTHWEST, 5 TO 7, DECREASING 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6 LATER IN HUMBER AND THAMES. MODERATE OR ROUGH. RAIN THEN FAIR. GOOD.
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
On October 17, 2010 at 20:24 j...@nethead.com (Joe Hamelin) wrote: That's why 3M registered mmm.com back in 1988. When BU joined the internet and promptly brought down about a third of it with their host table entries one of the problems was a host named 3b (.bu.edu, it was an ATT 3B5) which caused a 4bsd script to go into an infinite loop filling roots (/tmp) which back then crashed systems. Also, one-letter hostnames (a.bu.edu as an alias for bucsa.bu.edu, etc.) I know because basically it was my fault. -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
Day, does anyone see any issues with this? Please, I strongly urge you to consider the ergonomics in question. That name is REALLY hard to read, spell, pronounce, type, recognize, etc. Agreed that there are no technical roadblocks, but again, please use common sense and choose something that doesn't make everybody's life more complicated. A domain name is something that sticks for many years and is of daily use in many many areas, and even more when it is for designating a transit ISP. my 2 cents, cl.
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Sun Oct 17 22:23:13 2010 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 20:24:30 -0700 Subject: Re: network name 101100010100110.net From: Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com To: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org Cc: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com, nanog@nanog.org That's why 3M registered mmm.com back in 1988. Not to mention the fact that the company was originally _named_ Minnesota Mining Manufacturing, and that '3M' was *just* a logo and trademark.
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 23:33:13 -0700 From: Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com Subject: Re: network name 101100010100110.net On 10/17/10 8:24 PM, Joe Hamelin wrote: That's why 3M registered mmm.com back in 1988. and not just because minnestoaminingandmanufacturing.com is hard to type... Like they had that choice _then_. 14 character limit. grin they've since officially change the name of the company to 3m...
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
Technically, no. But you probably fancy annoying people. I wouldn't imaging anyone typing that right on the first attempt. On 17 Oct 2010 06:47, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com wrote: I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this?
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 08:07:41AM +0200, Per Carlson wrote: On 17 Oct 2010 06:47, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com wrote: I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this? Technically, no. But you probably fancy annoying people. I wouldn't imaging anyone typing that right on the first attempt. And imagine answering the phones... - Matt
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
Matthew said: And imagine answering the phones... Bender's Big Score. Is this for Jewish Hospital (AS 22694)? And many years ago I had jh.org, but domains were $70 back then and my wife thought I had too many... -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com wrote: I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this? The domain-name starts with a digit, which is not really recommended, RFC 1034, due to the fact a valid actual hostname cannot start with a digit, and, for example, some MTAs/MUAs, that comply with earlier versions of standards still in use, will possibly have a problem sending e-mail to the flat domain, even if the actual hostname is something legal such as mail.101100010100110.net. Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29: domain ::= element | element . domain element ::= name | # number | [ dotnum ] mailbox ::= local-part @ domain ... name ::= a ldh-str let-dig ... a ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z in upper case and a through z in lower case d ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9 -- -Jh
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
On Oct 17, 2010, at 7:16 PM, James Hess wrote: On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com wrote: I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this? The domain-name starts with a digit, which is not really recommended, RFC 1034, due to the fact a valid actual hostname cannot start with a digit, A valid actual hostname can start with a digit. Many do. I'm guessing 3com may have had something to do with that trend. RFC 1123 2.1 clarified that a couple of decades ago, so I doubt you'll find any running software that doesn't agree. and, for example, some MTAs/MUAs, that comply with earlier versions of standards still in use, will possibly have a problem sending e-mail to the flat domain, even if the actual hostname is something legal such as mail.101100010100110.net. Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29: There are several less obsolete RFCs that specify email addresses, they're all quite specific about what a valid hostname is in an email sense. 5321 is the latest, I think, section 4.1.2. Cheers, Steve
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
In message 20101018024021.gc8...@vacation.karoshi.com., bmann...@vacation.kar
oshi.com writes:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:16:04PM -0500, James Hess wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data
network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
any issues with this?
The domain-name starts with a digit, which is not really recommended, RFC
1034,
due to the fact a valid actual hostname cannot start with a digit,
and, for example,
some MTAs/MUAs, that comply with earlier versions of standards still in us
e,
will possibly have a problem sending e-mail to the flat domain, even
if the actual hostname is
something legal such as mail.101100010100110.net.
if there is code that old still out there, it desrves to die.
the leading character restriction was lifted when the company
3com was created. its been nearly 18 years since that advice
held true.
Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain
name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29:
domain ::= element | element . domain
element ::= name | # number | [ dotnum ]
mailbox ::= local-part @ domain
...
name ::= a ldh-str let-dig
...
a ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z
in upper case and a through z in lower case
d ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9
at least three times in the past decade, the issues of RFC 821
vs Domain lables has come up on the DNSEXT mailing list in the
IETF (or its predacessor). RFC 821 hostnames are not the
convention for Domain Labels, esp as we enter the age of
Non-Ascii labels.
Correct but if you want to be able to send email to them then you
*also* need to follow RFC 821 as modified by RFC 1123 so effectively
you are limited to LDLDH*LD*{.LDLDH*LD*}+.
If you want to buy !#$%^*.com go ahead but please don't expect
anyone to change their mail software to support b...@!#$%^*.com
as a email address.
The DNS has very liberal labels (any octet stream up to 63 octets
in length). If you want to store information about a host, in the
DNS, using its name then you still need to abide by the rules for
naming hosts. Yes this is spelt out in RFC 1035.
There are lots of RFCs which confuse domain name with domain
style host name. Or confuse domain name with a host name stored
in the DNS.
Mark
That said, the world was much simpler last century.
--bill
--
-Jh
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
That's why 3M registered mmm.com back in 1988.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 20101018024021.gc8...@vacation.karoshi.com.,
bmann...@vacation.kar
oshi.com writes:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:16:04PM -0500, James Hess wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data
network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
any issues with this?
The domain-name starts with a digit, which is not really recommended, RFC
1034,
due to the fact a valid actual hostname cannot start with a digit,
and, for example,
some MTAs/MUAs, that comply with earlier versions of standards still in us
e,
will possibly have a problem sending e-mail to the flat domain, even
if the actual hostname is
something legal such as mail.101100010100110.net.
if there is code that old still out there, it desrves to die.
the leading character restriction was lifted when the company
3com was created. its been nearly 18 years since that advice
held true.
Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain
name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29:
domain ::= element | element . domain
element ::= name | # number | [ dotnum ]
mailbox ::= local-part @ domain
...
name ::= a ldh-str let-dig
...
a ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z
in upper case and a through z in lower case
d ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9
at least three times in the past decade, the issues of RFC 821
vs Domain lables has come up on the DNSEXT mailing list in the
IETF (or its predacessor). RFC 821 hostnames are not the
convention for Domain Labels, esp as we enter the age of
Non-Ascii labels.
Correct but if you want to be able to send email to them then you
*also* need to follow RFC 821 as modified by RFC 1123 so effectively
you are limited to LDLDH*LD*{.LDLDH*LD*}+.
If you want to buy !#$%^*.com go ahead but please don't expect
anyone to change their mail software to support b...@!#$%^*.com
as a email address.
The DNS has very liberal labels (any octet stream up to 63 octets
in length). If you want to store information about a host, in the
DNS, using its name then you still need to abide by the rules for
naming hosts. Yes this is spelt out in RFC 1035.
There are lots of RFCs which confuse domain name with domain
style host name. Or confuse domain name with a host name stored
in the DNS.
Mark
That said, the world was much simpler last century.
--bill
--
-Jh
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
On Saturday night, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com postulated: I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this? It's truly unsigned? (15 bit) -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote: On Saturday night, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com postulated: I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this? It's truly unsigned? (15 bit) -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474 unsigned?
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
16 bit integers. Ok, a lame joke. 22694.NET and 58A6.NET are available. What are you trying to name? -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474 On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote: On Saturday night, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com postulated: I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this? It's truly unsigned? (15 bit) -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474 unsigned?
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote: 16 bit integers. Ok, a lame joke. 22694.NET and 58A6.NET are available. What are you trying to name? -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474 On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com wrote: unsigned? On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote: On Saturday night, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com postulated: I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this? It's truly unsigned? (15 bit) -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474 A new network that we are going to use to connect all are global data centers and also use to peer with other networks to push data to the Internet
