From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Jan 14 10:26:34 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA28304
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 10:26:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id KAA28282
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 10:26:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id LAA00219; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 11:13:36 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199701141813.LAA00219@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: Upgrading from 2.2-Alpha to 2.2-Beta
To: gambert@cftnet.com (Allen W. Gambert)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 11:13:36 -0700 (MST)
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970114110450.13955H-100000@renoir.cftnet.com> from "Allen W. Gambert" at Jan 14, 97 11:13:59 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> I'm currently running 2.2-Alpha and am experiencing some problems domain 
> name resolution.  I'm not sure exactly where the problem lies and i'm 
> wondering if upgrading to 2.2-Beta will fix the problem.
> 
> When i'm not my 2.2-Alpha system and type
> 
> 		telnet www.mcafee.com
> 
> I get 
> 		www.mcafee.com: Unknown host
> 
> But when I use dig to lookup the name it comes back fine with no 
> problems.  If I add the IP address of this host to my /etc/hosts file 
> telnet works fine.
> 
> Other than this bug I've had no problems running 2.2-Alpha and look 
> forward to moving to 2.2-Release.
> 
> Is anyone aware of this problem?  Will upgrading to 2.2-Beta fix this 
> problem?  If I do upgrade to 2.2-Beta can I just download all the 
> source and just recompile it or should I use the fixit floppy and upgrade 
> this way? 

This is a change in the bind code; it now enforces standards which
everyone is already required to comply with, but which they frequently
do not.

The cannonical name of "www.mcafee.com" is "sc_axp2.mcafee.com"...

According to RFC1035:
| 
| <domain>	::=<subdomain> | " "
| <subdomain>	::=<label> | <subdomain> "." <label>
| <label>	::=<letter> [ [ <ldh-str> ] <let-dig> ]
| <ldh-str>	::=<let-dig-hyp> | <let-dig-hyp> <ldh-str>
| <let-dig-hyp>	::=<let-dig> | "-"
| <let-dig>	::=<letter> | <digit>
| <letter>	::=any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z
| 		   in upper case and a through z in lower case
| <digit>	::=any one of the ten digits 0 through 9 
| 
| Note that while upper and lower case letters are allowed in domain
| names, no significance is attached to the case. That is, two names
| with the same spelling but different case are to be treated as if
| identical. 
| 
| The labels must follow the rules for ARPANET host names. They must
| start with a letter, end with a letter or digit, and have as interior
| characters only letters, digits, and hyphen. There are also some
| restrictions on the length. Labels must be 63 characters or less. 

See also RFC1706, RFC1995, and RFC1996.


Please notify McAfee that they are using an illegal host name.

The lowest impact would probably be to change "sc_axp2.mcafee.com" to
"sc-axp2.mcafee.com".


					Regards,
					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.