From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jan 2 11:23:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA25158 for current-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 11:23:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de [141.76.1.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id LAA25146 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 11:23:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with ESMTP id UAA17194; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 20:21:17 +0100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id UAA14905; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 20:21:16 +0100 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.8.4/8.6.9) id TAA08332; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 19:14:19 +0100 (MET) From: J Wunsch Message-Id: <199701021814.TAA08332@uriah.heep.sax.de> Subject: Re: Resolver Error 0 (no error) To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD-current users) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 19:14:19 +0100 (MET) Cc: wpaul@skynet.ctr.columbia.edu (Bill Paul), peter@spinner.DIALix.COM (Peter Wemm) Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) In-Reply-To: <199701021626.LAA10553@skynet.ctr.columbia.edu> from Bill Paul at "Jan 2, 97 11:26:50 am" X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL17 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As Bill Paul wrote: > 5 169.130.12.5 (169.130.12.5) 91.750 ms 98.124 ms 102.126 ms > 6 169.130.1.101 (169.130.1.101) 82.285 ms 74.644 ms 79.732 ms > 7 144.228.60.1 (144.228.60.1) 281.282 ms 141.881 ms 219.776 ms > Hops 5 through 10 didn't reverse resolve correctly, but: > > [/homes/wpaul]:marple{17}% nslookup 169.130.12.5 > Server: sirius.ctr.columbia.edu > Address: 128.59.64.60 > > Name: ny-nyc-2-H4/0-T3.nysernet.net > Address: 169.130.12.5 Ah! It's the slash in the name. I've also seen this happen for a forward name resolution in another case, where a target name has an underscore. In this case, host(1) did correctly display it, but telnet to that hostname told me ``Unknown host''. Standards are a Good Thing, really, but enforcing standards by annoying users who can't even change the slightest thing on this (since they aren't the DNS admins of the zones in question) is IMHO unacceptable. I vote for reverting our resolver to the traditional behaviour. If named spits at boot time about names with an underscore in a primary or maybe even secondary file, that's fine with me. I can either change that myself, or can at least bug the admin of the primary where i'm a secondary for to do it. However, if the resolver library stops resolving these names, it's not okay. Peter? -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)