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