Bind 8 special characters

Kevin Darcy kcd at daimlerchrysler.com
Thu Jan 6 22:14:29 UTC 2000


Barry Margolin wrote:

> In article <3874FF6B.5995C6FA at daimlerchrysler.com>,
> Kevin Darcy  <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> wrote:
> >That's an answer, but not really to the question I asked. Did hosts have to
> >included in HOSTS.TXT in order to connect to the Internet? I'm trying to figure
> >out what you meant by "If you connect to the Internet you play by its rules". If
> >machines could connect to the Internet without being in HOSTS.TXT, then
> >it appears
> >your statement is incorrect, at least insofar as "the rules" consisted of
> >RFC 952,
> >the only RFC you cited.
>
> Before DNS, if you wanted your host to be accessed by name rather than just
> address, you had to get the name->address translation inserted into
> HOSTS.TXT.
>
> Since every machine had its own copy of HOSTS.TXT, you could put your name
> in your local HOSTS.TXT but not the one at the the NIC.  Then your users
> could get there, but people at other sites wouldn't be able to look up your
> machine.
>
> But RFC 952 doesn't say that a machine has to be in HOSTS.TXT, it simply
> specifies the format of the file, which includes the format of hostnames.
> This is then referenced in many places, include RFC 1123, so it's
> entrenched as the standard for hostnames in TCP/IP applications.

Exactly. Which is why I suggested that RFC 1123 is really the applicable standard.
RFC 952, while a standard, wasn't a DNS standard nor -- as I've pointed out in
another thread -- a comprehensive "hostname" standard. This is just a minor
difference of opinion as to which RFC applies to a given situation.


- Kevin





More information about the bind-users mailing list