nanog mailing list archives
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
From: bmanning () vacation karoshi com
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:40:09 +0000
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 05:24:58PM +0000, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
I'm assuming we aren't making jokes here, but 3com.com was created in 1986:I'm confused. 3com.com would not appear to be entirely numerical. Or maybe someone spiked my coffee this morning. Best Regards, Nathan Eisenberg
its not. the thread started with a response that claimed that LEADING
numerics were illegal per some old RFCs. I commented that 3com.com
was the "test case" that caused the relaxation of the original advice.
others has since followed up w/ a variety of observations.
--bill
Current thread:
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net, (continued)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Joe Hamelin (Oct 17)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Joel Jaeggli (Oct 17)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Joe Hamelin (Oct 18)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Barry Shein (Oct 18)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Tony Finch (Oct 18)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Steve Atkins (Oct 17)
- Message not available
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Roland Perry (Oct 19)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net David Shaw (Oct 19)
- RE: network name 101100010100110.net Deepak Jain (Oct 19)
- RE: network name 101100010100110.net Nathan Eisenberg (Oct 19)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net bmanning (Oct 19)
- RE: network name 101100010100110.net Tony Finch (Oct 20)
- Re: network name 101100010100110.net Roland Perry (Oct 19)
