DNS isn't my *thing*, but IIUC, couldn't "whatever.invalid" be resolved
to an FQDN of "whatever.invalid.example.com" if the node doing the
resolving has "example.com" as its domain?
To be sure, wouldn't it be necessary to specify "whatever.invalid." ???
Thanks,
Paul
On 2/16/2011 8:09 AM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> On 02/16/2011 05:36 AM, Brett Tate wrote:
>>>> The draft also discusses using ".invalid"; however as
>>>> I mentioned within the following link, I not sure if
>>>> that it is really formatted as a valid FQDN.
>>>
>>> For sure ".invalid" is not a valid FQDN.
>>
>> Thanks for the response. The following is the exact snippet from
>> draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-07 section 4.1.
>>
>> "For this, IPv6 implementations MUST use a domain name within the .invalid
>> DNS top-level domain instead of using the IPv6 unspecified address (i.e.,
>> ::)."
>>
>> Is the draft currently indicating to use 1) ".invalid", 2) "invalid", 3)
>> "invalid.", or 4) something like "whatever.invalid"?
>>
>> I think that the answer is number 4; however I don't recall if any of the
>> others would be good enough to satisfy draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition, RFC
>> 4566, and RFC 1035.
>
> It is indeed number 4; I think the text in the draft is fairly clear on
> that point.
>
> Neither 2 or 3 would be 'within the .invalid DNS TLD', and number 1 is
> not "a domain name within the .invalid DNS TLD'.
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
