Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!motcsd!hpda!hpcuhb!hpindda!dfc From: dfc@hpindda.HP.COM (Don Coolidge) Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp Subject: Re: Gripe about nodename restrictions Message-ID: <4310052@hpindda.HP.COM> Date: 17 Aug 89 23:17:14 GMT References: <2425@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA Lines: 54 >I've a copy of RFC 1034 (Domain Concepts and Facilities) and have >checked therein before starting this mild flame... >As you may notice from my address, we have a three part domain >name following the node name. It seems to work well here and >we see no reason to change. However, HP seems to think that >one should only have a two level domain name, e.g. HP.COM. When >I issue the command "nodename anon.cs.colostate.edu", I get a >message "nodename: invalid node name syntax". I'm afraid you're confusing two similar things. The machine name entered via the nodename command has nothing to do with domain names. It's the HP-only nodename, required only for HP-proprietary Network Services (NFT and RFA). It is limited to three sections (two levels) by HP specification. Unless you make use of NFT and/or RFA, you have no need to ever execute "nodename". The nodename is never used by any non-HP-proprietary code. It has nothing to do with RFC 1034. HP nodenames were in use long before the RFC came out. I'm not sure how you enter the BIND domain name for your machine. Full support for BIND first appeared with the 6.5 release on the HP9000 s300. In any case, the "nodename" command isn't how you do it. By the way, you have a three-part domain name following your "hostname" (by HP-UX terminology), not your "nodename". >Back to RFC1034... check section 3.1 last paragraph and the example in >3.5 for mention of a three part domain and size limits. Also note >RFC1035 sections 2.3.4 and 3.1 for more on size limits. >I suspect that a really aggresive competitor could disqualify HP as a >bidder for failing to meet this spec. Has this happened? (Remember >DEC getting bumped from the DOD procurement a year or so ago, based on >their failure to provide the "standard" Unix?) I don't see any aggressive competitors disqualifying us for meeting our own proprietary spec ;-). Rather, I'd imagine they're more dismayed to see us implementing more industry standards with time, instead of sticking to proprietary solutions. >Yet more flaming is based on the hostname length restrictions. >While this isn't as well founded as the other part, it's still >irritating to come upon limits (of eight characters), seemingly >based on tradition. It's based on System V compliance. HP-UX is based in part on both System V and BSD flavors of un*x. System V specified the eight-character limit. In later releases (6.5 onward), that limit's changed. - Don Coolidge The above comments represent my own views as a friend to the Net, and should not necessarily be taken as HP's official pronouncements. When in doubt, call your Support Center. (Of course, they'll agree with me ;-) )