nanog mailing list archives
Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters?
From: David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 16:49:34 -0700
You may be referring to a limitation of a certain OS regarding a hostname; or some network's policy.
No. See http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc810.txt "ASSUMPTIONS 1. A "name" (Net, Host, Gateway, or Domain name) is a text string up to 24 characters drawn from the alphabet (A-Z), digits (0-9), and the minus sign (-) and period (.). ..." This defined a policy that was imposed by "The NIC" of the time. I believe the policy was relaxed somewhat after the DNS protocol was specified which allowed domain names to be longer than the NIC's policy, and the resulting confusion necessitated the clarification in 2181. Regards, -drc
Current thread:
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters?, (continued)
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? steve pirk [egrep] (Oct 07)
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? Owen DeLong (Oct 07)
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? bmanning (Oct 10)
- Message not available
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? steve pirk [egrep] (Oct 11)
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? steve pirk [egrep] (Oct 07)
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? Jay Ashworth (Oct 07)
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? Joe Hamelin (Oct 07)
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? Jay Ashworth (Oct 07)
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? Owen DeLong (Oct 07)
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? Joe Hamelin (Oct 07)
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? JC Dill (Oct 10)