i went to buy that book but theres a bind 10 version out and i didnt know which was appropriate since we just went to 9 like last year DNS and BIND, 5th Edition covers up to our edition, would that be the most approriate edition of the book? I remember I was going to ask about that here but was afraid i would be bullied and triggered into a safespace playdoh fest
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Eric Kuhnke <[email protected]> wrote: > re: DNS, you should probably buy and read the O'Reilly BIND book.... > Underscores have never been valid in hostnames and domain names, hyphens > have always been valid. For the last 20 years. > > > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 11:46 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> powercode once croaked out over hyphens, or underscores, i dont remember, >> but i do remember having to rename every entry. trash it if its problematic >> isnt really an option in real life microsoft, for whatever reason gets all >> mad at underscores, even if they use them alot >> >> is there a defacto cisco or juniper white paper that is out there for >> reference, im all for following an accepted standard where i can >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Eric Kuhnke <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> If you have software that can't handle hyphens in DNS names, I would >>> trash it, but that's just me... hyphens have been valid in hostnames and >>> domain names since dinosaurs walked the earth. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostname >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 11:32 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> not sure on the hierarchy, for this particular subnet that is just >>>> interior routing infrastructure in the network VL01GE04RT01CBN0.inf.domain >>>> because its routing, the subdomain is on an interior only set of name >>>> servers not on the public domain servers since its rfc1918 space, is that >>>> what you mean about hierarchy? >>>> The only non administrative readers will be looking at the last four >>>> characters to know a path, I did the 4 characters because ive been burned >>>> so many times on dashes and underscores, pretty much every delimiter by >>>> some software or another that cant handle it correctly >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Eric Kuhnke <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Properly done DNS systems can deal with much longer hostnames than >>>>> that, but from a human readability and usability perspective, I would use >>>>> hyphens to separate things a bit. And do it hierarchically rather than one >>>>> flat hostname.domain. >>>>> >>>>> Look at the reverse DNS entries for the 1, 10, 40 and 100Gb interfaces >>>>> on major ISP backbone routers in a traceroute for examples. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 10:49 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> beating this horse again. >>>>>> Is there any component of DNS that would be problematic with a 16 >>>>>> character name? >>>>>> >>>>>> Im going with VLAN ID, Port type and number, Device type and number, >>>>>> location >>>>>> all are 4 characters >>>>>> >>>>>> VL01GE04RT01CBN0.domain >>>>>> >>>>>> This is >>>>>> VLAN ID 1 default (will remove letters if VLAN goes beyond 99 or 999) >>>>>> Gigabit Ethernet >>>>>> Port number 1 >>>>>> Router 1 >>>>>> at CBN >>>>>> >>>>>> it just looks really long and cumbersome and im afraid one day some >>>>>> standard im unaware of will hammer me, like a proper ICANN API >>>>>> instruction >>>>>> for some newly required function will kill everyone in the room with >>>>>> lazes >>>>>> if the entry exceeds 9 characters >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>>>>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> > > -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
