In article <[email protected]> you write: >On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 06:46:30PM -0400, John Levine wrote: > >> >Bottom-line, they're used infrequently, but they do seem to work. >> >> In the DNS sense, sure they work. >> >> In the application sense, I doubt it. When I looked through the .CAT >> DNAMEs for www.<accented>.cat I don't think I found any web servers >> that gave me what looked like a deliberate answer rather than a >> default or error page. I'd be quite surprised if there were many web >> or mail servers in Taiwan or Iran that gave reasonable responses to >> their DNAME'd names. > >Of course, as you well know, Web != Internet, but even restricted to the >web (since you appeared to issue a challenge) I naturally had to find a >counter-example: > > http://xn--4gq43txlz.xn--kpry57d > http://xn--4gq43txlz.xn--kprw13d
I think that works by accident with the site being the server's default, You can find it at the IP address http://203.74.178.22/ also. >Yes, it seems to be rather the exception than the rule. For bonus >points, here are two sites that have rather different content: > > http://xn--4pz14j.xn--kpry57d > http://xn--4pz14j.xn--kprw13d > >despite the latter being a DNAME synthesised alias for the former. Hey, I didn't say none. I think we agree that DNAMEs for web sites could work if people wanted them to, but for the most part they don't, so they don't. R's, John _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
