Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters?
Found a decent starting reference. It was a Network solutions limit... I *knew* it! LOL http://www.123-domain-register.com/longdomainnames.htm The domain in question was inspectorgadgetthemovie.com 27 characters long including the .tld. I was off by one, the limit was 22 characters for the A record name and 4 characters for .com, .net, .org, .gov and .edu.
From the 123-domain-register web page:
The word is out... and the experts have been taking advantage of a change in Domain Name regulations that allows up to 67 characters in domain names.
How this will impact you:
-
Long domain names filled with keywords can get you ranked higher on the search engines. (yes, the search engines will rank them)
-
For those who could not get a DOT.COM domain name, or were limited by the 22 character limit, those days are over...for awhile anyway.
-
This revolution is driven by entrepreneurs who can act quickly. If you do not act soon, all the good domains will be gone, and you will have to pay premiums you do not want to in order get the domain name you want.
Since 1993, Network Solutions has registered more than 3.4 million domain names -- all limited to 26 characters. Now that their exclusive government contract is ending, competitors have tossed this artificial limit and are allowing longer names.
Cool, I was not dreaming... ;-] --steve On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 15:00, <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 02:54:38PM -0700, steve pirk [egrep] wrote:
I seem to recollect back the 1999 or 2000 times that I was unable to register a domain name that was 24 characters long. Shortly after that, I heard that the character limit had been increased to like 128 characters, and we were able to register the name.
Can anyone offer some input, or is this a memory of a bad dream? ;-]
-- Steve Pirk Yensid
the foundational DNS spec sez:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1035.txt
2.3.1 [elided] There are also some restrictions on the length. Labels must be 63 characters or less.
/bill
-- steve pirk refiamerica.org "father... the sleeper has awakened..." paul atreides - dune kexp.org member august '09
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 02:54:38PM -0700, steve pirk [egrep] wrote: I seem to recollect back the 1999 or 2000 times that I was unable to register a domain name that was 24 characters long...
I remember tales from when there was an eight character limit. But that was back when you didn't have to pay for them and they assigned you a class-c block automatically. Of course it took six weeks to register because there was only one person running the registry. -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Joe Hamelin <joe@nethead.com> wrote:
I remember tales from when there was an eight character limit. But that was back when you didn't have to pay for them and they assigned you a class-c block automatically. Of course it took six weeks to register because there was only one person running the registry.
You may be referring to a limitation of a certain OS regarding a hostname; or some network's policy. But the DNS protocol itself never had a limit of 8 characters. When we are talking about the contents of "A" record names, I would refer you to http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2181.txt "RFC 2181 Clarifications to the DNS Specification R. Elz, R. Bush [ July 1997 ] (TXT = 36989) (Updates RFC1034, RFC1035, RFC1123) (Updated-By RFC4035, RFC2535, RFC4343, RFC4033, RFC4034, RFC5452) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: int, WG: dnsind) " " Elz & Bush Standards Track [Page 12] ... Occasionally it is assumed that the Domain Name System serves only the purpose of mapping Internet host names to data, and mapping Internet addresses to host names. This is not correct, the DNS is a general (if somewhat limited) hierarchical database, and can store almost any kind of data, for almost any purpose. ... 11. Name syntax " The length of any one label is limited to between 1 and 63 octets. A full domain name is limited to 255 octets (including the separators). The zero length full name is defined as representing the root of the DNS tree, and is typically written and displayed as ".". Those restrictions aside, any binary string whatever can be used as the label of any resource record. " -- -JH
It turns out it was an artificial limitation on Network Solution's part. Being the only registrar at the time, it was pretty much internet wide at that point, contrary to the RFC spec. What was so funny was that someone got Internic/Network Solutions to up the limit. Apparently just to save some money on reprinting movie posters... ok, so they would have had to change some trailers... ;-] On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 16:39, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
I remember tales from when there was an eight character limit. But that was back when you didn't have to pay for them and they assigned you a class-c block automatically. Of course it took six weeks to register because
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Joe Hamelin <joe@nethead.com> wrote: there
was only one person running the registry.
You may be referring to a limitation of a certain OS regarding a hostname; or some network's policy. But the DNS protocol itself never had a limit of 8 characters. When we are talking about the contents of "A" record names,
I would refer you to http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2181.txt "RFC 2181 Clarifications to the DNS Specification R. Elz, R. Bush [ July 1997 ] (TXT = 36989) (Updates RFC1034, RFC1035, RFC1123) (Updated-By RFC4035, RFC2535, RFC4343, RFC4033, RFC4034, RFC5452) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: int, WG: dnsind) "
" Elz & Bush Standards Track [Page 12] ... Occasionally it is assumed that the Domain Name System serves only the purpose of mapping Internet host names to data, and mapping Internet addresses to host names. This is not correct, the DNS is a general (if somewhat limited) hierarchical database, and can store almost any kind of data, for almost any purpose. ... 11. Name syntax " The length of any one label is limited to between 1 and 63 octets. A full domain name is limited to 255 octets (including the separators). The zero length full name is defined as representing the root of the DNS tree, and is typically written and displayed as ".". Those restrictions aside, any binary string whatever can be used as the label of any resource record. "
-- -JH
-- steve pirk refiamerica.org "father... the sleeper has awakened..." paul atreides - dune kexp.org member august '09
NSI was never the only registrar. They were just the only registrar for COM, ORG, NET, EDU, and possibly a few other TLDs, but, they were, for example, never the registrar for US or many other CCTLDs. Therefore, it was not internet wide, though I will admit that it did cover most of the widely known gTLDs. Owen On Oct 7, 2011, at 4:45 PM, steve pirk [egrep] wrote:
It turns out it was an artificial limitation on Network Solution's part. Being the only registrar at the time, it was pretty much internet wide at that point, contrary to the RFC spec.
What was so funny was that someone got Internic/Network Solutions to up the limit. Apparently just to save some money on reprinting movie posters... ok, so they would have had to change some trailers... ;-]
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 16:39, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
I remember tales from when there was an eight character limit. But that was back when you didn't have to pay for them and they assigned you a class-c block automatically. Of course it took six weeks to register because
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Joe Hamelin <joe@nethead.com> wrote: there
was only one person running the registry.
You may be referring to a limitation of a certain OS regarding a hostname; or some network's policy. But the DNS protocol itself never had a limit of 8 characters. When we are talking about the contents of "A" record names,
I would refer you to http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2181.txt "RFC 2181 Clarifications to the DNS Specification R. Elz, R. Bush [ July 1997 ] (TXT = 36989) (Updates RFC1034, RFC1035, RFC1123) (Updated-By RFC4035, RFC2535, RFC4343, RFC4033, RFC4034, RFC5452) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: int, WG: dnsind) "
" Elz & Bush Standards Track [Page 12] ... Occasionally it is assumed that the Domain Name System serves only the purpose of mapping Internet host names to data, and mapping Internet addresses to host names. This is not correct, the DNS is a general (if somewhat limited) hierarchical database, and can store almost any kind of data, for almost any purpose. ... 11. Name syntax " The length of any one label is limited to between 1 and 63 octets. A full domain name is limited to 255 octets (including the separators). The zero length full name is defined as representing the root of the DNS tree, and is typically written and displayed as ".". Those restrictions aside, any binary string whatever can be used as the label of any resource record. "
-- -JH
-- steve pirk refiamerica.org "father... the sleeper has awakened..." paul atreides - dune kexp.org member august '09
back in the day, abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz1234567890ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ.ca.us. existed to test the length of DNS label. circa 1992 ^b.com also existed (yes, we considered ^p) the heady days of DNS evolution! /bill On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 06:16:46PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
NSI was never the only registrar. They were just the only registrar for COM, ORG, NET, EDU, and possibly a few other TLDs, but, they were, for example, never the registrar for US or many other CCTLDs.
Therefore, it was not internet wide, though I will admit that it did cover most of the widely known gTLDs.
Owen
On Oct 7, 2011, at 4:45 PM, steve pirk [egrep] wrote:
It turns out it was an artificial limitation on Network Solution's part. Being the only registrar at the time, it was pretty much internet wide at that point, contrary to the RFC spec.
What was so funny was that someone got Internic/Network Solutions to up the limit. Apparently just to save some money on reprinting movie posters... ok, so they would have had to change some trailers... ;-]
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 16:39, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
I remember tales from when there was an eight character limit. But that was back when you didn't have to pay for them and they assigned you a class-c block automatically. Of course it took six weeks to register because
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Joe Hamelin <joe@nethead.com> wrote: there
was only one person running the registry.
You may be referring to a limitation of a certain OS regarding a hostname; or some network's policy. But the DNS protocol itself never had a limit of 8 characters. When we are talking about the contents of "A" record names,
I would refer you to http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2181.txt "RFC 2181 Clarifications to the DNS Specification R. Elz, R. Bush [ July 1997 ] (TXT = 36989) (Updates RFC1034, RFC1035, RFC1123) (Updated-By RFC4035, RFC2535, RFC4343, RFC4033, RFC4034, RFC5452) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: int, WG: dnsind) "
" Elz & Bush Standards Track [Page 12] ... Occasionally it is assumed that the Domain Name System serves only the purpose of mapping Internet host names to data, and mapping Internet addresses to host names. This is not correct, the DNS is a general (if somewhat limited) hierarchical database, and can store almost any kind of data, for almost any purpose. ... 11. Name syntax " The length of any one label is limited to between 1 and 63 octets. A full domain name is limited to 255 octets (including the separators). The zero length full name is defined as representing the root of the DNS tree, and is typically written and displayed as ".". Those restrictions aside, any binary string whatever can be used as the label of any resource record. "
-- -JH
-- steve pirk refiamerica.org "father... the sleeper has awakened..." paul atreides - dune kexp.org member august '09
----- Original Message -----
From: "steve pirk [egrep]" <steve@pirk.com>
What was so funny was that someone got Internic/Network Solutions to up the limit. Apparently just to save some money on reprinting movie posters... ok, so they would have had to change some trailers... ;-]
"3com.com" Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote: ----- Original Message -----
"3com.com"
I recall that 3M was originally mmm.com because they wouldn't allow a number to start a domain. /me runs whois mmm.com Yep, Created on..............: 1988-10-31. but wait, 3m.com Created on..............: 1988-05-27. So was the digit as first octet a limitation with some OS or software (BIND, sendmail, gopher?) or do I have brain-fade? -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Hamelin" <joe@nethead.com>
Subject: Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote: ----- Original Message -----
"3com.com"
I recall that 3M was originally mmm.com because they wouldn't allow a number to start a domain.
/me runs whois mmm.com
Yep, Created on..............: 1988-10-31.
but wait, 3m.com Created on..............: 1988-05-27.
So was the digit as first octet a limitation with some OS or software (BIND, sendmail, gopher?) or do I have brain-fade?
I would have bet good green Murrican Money that RFC 1034/5 required that it not start with a number, but I'll have to go look. No, I seem to remember pretty clearly it was administrative. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Yes, this was because some very old (current at the time, however) implementations of gethostbyname(3) were implemented in such a way that if the first character they saw returned isdigit()==TRUE, then, they would assume that they had been passed an IP address and would attempt to encode the string as an IP address rather than looking it up in /etc/hosts or DNS. Owen On Oct 7, 2011, at 7:41 PM, Joe Hamelin wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote: ----- Original Message -----
"3com.com"
I recall that 3M was originally mmm.com because they wouldn't allow a number to start a domain.
/me runs whois mmm.com
Yep, Created on..............: 1988-10-31.
but wait, 3m.com Created on..............: 1988-05-27.
So was the digit as first octet a limitation with some OS or software (BIND, sendmail, gopher?) or do I have brain-fade?
-- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Yes, this was because some very old (current at the time, however) implementations of gethostbyname(3) were implemented in such a way that if the first character they saw returned isdigit()==TRUE, then, they would assume that they had been passed an IP address and would attempt to encode the string as an IP address rather than looking it up in /etc/hosts or DNS.
Now I'm going to have to look at the current gethostbyname(3) and see what happens if we ever get a tld that is a decimal number under 255. Yet another reason for IPv6. -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
On 07/10/11 7:41 PM, Joe Hamelin wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Jay Ashworth<jra@baylink.com> wrote: ----- Original Message -----
"3com.com" I recall that 3M was originally mmm.com because they wouldn't allow a number to start a domain.
/me runs whois mmm.com
Yep, Created on..............: 1988-10-31.
but wait, 3m.com Created on..............: 1988-05-27.
So was the digit as first octet a limitation with some OS or software (BIND, sendmail, gopher?) or do I have brain-fade?
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 (.). No blank or space characters are permitted as part of a name. No distinction is made between upper and lower case. The first character must be a letter.
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
participants (8)
-
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
David Conrad -
Jay Ashworth -
JC Dill -
Jimmy Hess -
Joe Hamelin -
Owen DeLong -
steve pirk [egrep]