I take that to mean that a system needs to cope with _other_ hosts
having numeric hostnames when communicating with them over the Internet.
It doesn't mandate that a given host must be able to be configured by
its user to have a numeric Unix hostname. It's perfectly reasonable for
a system
RFC1123 explicitly states that an all numeric hostname valid:
2.1 Host Names and Numbers
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
Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.
** Changed in: rabbitmq-server (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1529033
Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make
Ubuntu better.
I'm pretty sure an all numeric hostname is considered just invalid by
most measures. For example, along the same lines as Breno points out,
"getent hosts 1234" returns nonsensical results.
So this is Won't Fix or
I do not consider this as a bug, 'ping' is not able to work also.
➜ ~ hostnamectl
Static hostname: 1610
Icon name: computer-vm
Chassis: vm
Machine ID: da29c08f2e840385b1d700a257211f57
Boot ID: f0dad3c50b2d42bb998955dee24cdef8
