back in the day, abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz1234567890ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ.ca.us.
existed to test the length of DNS label. circa 1992 ^b.com also existed (yes, we considered ^p) the heady days of DNS evolution! /bill On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 06:16:46PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > NSI was never the only registrar. They were just the only registrar > for COM, ORG, NET, EDU, and possibly a few other TLDs, but, > they were, for example, never the registrar for US or many other > CCTLDs. > > Therefore, it was not internet wide, though I will admit that it did > cover most of the widely known gTLDs. > > Owen > > On Oct 7, 2011, at 4:45 PM, steve pirk [egrep] wrote: > > > It turns out it was an artificial limitation on Network Solution's part. > > Being the only registrar at the time, it was pretty much internet wide at > > that point, contrary to the RFC spec. > > > > What was so funny was that someone got Internic/Network Solutions to up the > > limit. Apparently just to save some money on reprinting movie posters... ok, > > so they would have had to change some trailers... > > ;-] > > > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 16:39, Jimmy Hess <mysi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Joe Hamelin <j...@nethead.com> wrote: > >>> I remember tales from when there was an eight character limit. But that > >> was > >>> back when you didn't have to pay for them and they assigned you a class-c > >>> block automatically. Of course it took six weeks to register because > >> there > >>> was only one person running the registry. > >> > >> You may be referring to a limitation of a certain OS regarding a > >> hostname; or some network's policy. > >> But the DNS protocol itself never had a limit of 8 characters. > >> When we are talking about the contents of "A" record names, > >> > >> I would refer you to > >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2181.txt > >> "RFC 2181 > >> Clarifications to the DNS Specification R. Elz, R. Bush > >> [ July 1997 ] (TXT = 36989) (Updates RFC1034, RFC1035, RFC1123) > >> (Updated-By RFC4035, RFC2535, RFC4343, RFC4033, RFC4034, RFC5452) > >> (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: int, WG: dnsind) " > >> > >> " > >> Elz & Bush Standards Track [Page 12] > >> ... > >> Occasionally it is assumed that the Domain Name System serves only > >> the purpose of mapping Internet host names to data, and mapping > >> Internet addresses to host names. This is not correct, the DNS is a > >> general (if somewhat limited) hierarchical database, and can store > >> almost any kind of data, for almost any purpose. > >> ... > >> 11. Name syntax > >> " > >> The length of any one label is limited to between 1 and 63 octets. A > >> full domain > >> name is limited to 255 octets (including the separators). The zero > >> length full name is defined as representing the root of the DNS tree, > >> and is typically written and displayed as ".". Those restrictions > >> aside, any binary string whatever can be used as the label of any > >> resource record. > >> " > >> > >> -- > >> -JH > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > steve pirk > > refiamerica.org > > "father... the sleeper has awakened..." paul atreides - dune > > kexp.org member august '09 >
