Hi. On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 03:36:45PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 09:21:55AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Saturday 17 April 2021 23:31:20 Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > It boiled down to something, someplace, not liking a hostname starting > > with a number, I recalled I had to rename another machine a couple > > months ago because it didn't work either. > > > > But I changed its hostname to dddprint, based on the previous 3dprint, > > and it now works as requested. So my problem is solved. > > > > Is that just a head scratcher, or is there a valid reason to not allow a > > hostname such as 6040 or 3dprint? Something starting with a numeral IOW. > > Well, it's in rfc1035 [1]:
That RFC is obsolete. RFC1123 says on this: The syntax of a legal Internet host name was specified in RFC-952 [DNS:4]. One aspect of host name syntax is hereby changed: the restriction on the first character is relaxed to allow either a letter or a digit. Host software MUST support this more liberal syntax. Host software MUST handle host names of up to 63 characters and SHOULD handle host names of up to 255 characters. Hence "3dprint" is a perfectly valid hostname, compliant with RFC1123. As shown (to me) by a quick experiment, both dnsmasq and bind accept "3dprint" for both A and AAAA record, and it resolves successfully. The original problem is more likely a local configuration problem, or an operator error. Reco
