Hahahahaha! That is awesome. On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 17:50, <bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com> wrote:
> 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 > > > > > -- steve pirk yensid "father... the sleeper has awakened..." paul atreides - dune kexp.org member august '09 - Google+ pirk.com
