IP addresses in NS records seem to be breaking hostname resolution

David Botham dns at botham.net
Thu Jul 18 13:38:05 UTC 2002




> -----Original Message-----
> From: bind-users-bounce at isc.org [mailto:bind-users-bounce at isc.org] On
> Behalf Of Chris Davis
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 9:22 PM
> To: bind-users at isc.org
> Subject: RE: IP addresses in NS records seem to be breaking hostname
> resolution
> 
> 
> I'm afraid we have lost focus of the discussion.  The discussion
regards
> zones with NS records that incorrectly have RDATA using IP addresses
> rather
> than hostnames.  We are not addressing NS RDATA hostnames that do not
seem
> to resolve to an IP address.
> 
> The config that started our discussion was:
> 
> @	IN	NS 	209.44.8.1
> @ 	IN	NS 	209.44.8.6
> @	IN 	NS	216.90.116.7
> 

Chris,  It is important to remember that *all numeric* hostnames are
legal.  Hence, 209.44.8.1 is a perfectly legal hostname even though it
does not end in a recognizable TLD.  It is not named's responsibility to
ensure that the RDATA hostname is resolvable (for all the previously
stated reasons).  If there was a TLD called "1", then we could have a
host 209.44.8.1.  I forget the RFC, but, an RFC came out that removed
the requirement for a domain name to begin with a letter (I think to
accommodate companies like 3Com...)

Dave...

[clip...]



More information about the bind-users mailing list