Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #3539 > unrolled thread

Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.networking

Contents

  Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Hongyi Zhao <hongyi.zhao@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 01:43 +0000
    Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-10-18 03:27 +0000
    Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2015-10-18 09:45 +0200
      Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-10-18 12:43 +0100
        Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2015-10-18 17:02 +0200
          Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-10-18 18:17 +0000
            Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2015-10-18 20:30 +0200
              Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-10-18 19:35 +0100
    Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-18 17:31 +0000
      Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-10-18 13:48 -0400
        Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-18 18:22 +0000
          Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-10-18 19:32 +0100
            Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-10-18 16:45 -0400
              Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-10-18 17:14 -0400
                Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-10-18 19:09 -0400
                  Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-10-18 20:22 -0400
                  Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-10-18 20:41 -0400
                    Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com> - 2015-10-19 20:56 +0000
              Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-10-18 22:25 +0100
                Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-10-18 19:04 -0400
                  Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-10-19 09:22 +0100
                    Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-19 16:55 +0000
                      Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-19 11:23 -0600
                        Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-19 17:37 +0000
                          Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-10-20 14:52 -0400
                            Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-10-20 18:45 -0400
                              Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-21 01:47 +0000
                                Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-10-21 18:43 -0400
                              Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-10-21 10:54 +0000
                                Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-10-21 18:38 -0400
                                  Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2015-10-22 08:57 +0200
                                    Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-10-22 19:36 -0400
                                      Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-10-23 17:44 +0000
                                      Re: Is it possible to obtain all of the ip addresses correspoding to a FQDN? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2015-10-23 21:21 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#3559

Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> writes:
> On 10/18/15 17:25, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> writes:
>>> On 10/18/15 14:32, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>> This is nonsense.  www.google.com is a domain name.  See RFC1034 for
>>>> terminology.
>>>
>>> google.com is the domain name.
>>>
>>> www.google.com is a host name.
>>>
>>> www.google.com is NOT a domain name, that non-sense started with web
>>> masters/devs.
>>
>> Obviously you didn’t follow the suggestion to see RFC1034.
>>
> Obviously you didn’t understand RFC1034

s3.1 is pretty clear about the definition of ‘domain name’.  Which part
do you think contradicts it?

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3561

On 2015-10-19, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> writes:
>> On 10/18/15 17:25, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> writes:
>>>> On 10/18/15 14:32, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>> This is nonsense.  www.google.com is a domain name.  See RFC1034 for
>>>>> terminology.
>>>>
>>>> google.com is the domain name.
>>>>
>>>> www.google.com is a host name.
>>>>
>>>> www.google.com is NOT a domain name, that non-sense started with web
>>>> masters/devs.
>>>
>>> Obviously you didn???t follow the suggestion to see RFC1034.
>>>
>> Obviously you didn???t understand RFC1034
>
> s3.1 is pretty clear about the definition of ???domain name???.  Which part
> do you think contradicts it?

As I understand it, for you there domain name encompasses  host name. A host name
is also a domain name. For some people a
distinction is nice, and the word "domain name" differs in that a domain
name normally implies that there are a number of host names associated
with it, and a hostname refers (usually) to a single computer/ip, while
a domain name encompasses a whole buch of host names. Anyway, that was
the sense in which I interpreted the term "domain name". If it is not
the sense in which the OP used the term, I apologize. 
Getting bogged down in semantics rarely leads to fruitful discussions. 

>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3562

William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes:

> On 2015-10-19, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> writes:
>>> On 10/18/15 17:25, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>> Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> writes:
>>>>> On 10/18/15 14:32, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>>> This is nonsense.  www.google.com is a domain name.  See RFC1034 for
>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>
>>>>> google.com is the domain name.
>>>>>
>>>>> www.google.com is a host name.
>>>>>
>>>>> www.google.com is NOT a domain name, that non-sense started with web
>>>>> masters/devs.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously you didn???t follow the suggestion to see RFC1034.
>>>>
>>> Obviously you didn???t understand RFC1034
>>
>> s3.1 is pretty clear about the definition of ???domain name???.  Which part
>> do you think contradicts it?
>
> As I understand it, for you there domain name encompasses host name. A
> host name
> is also a domain name. For some people a
> distinction is nice, and the word "domain name" differs in that a domain
> name normally implies that there are a number of host names associated
> with it, and a hostname refers (usually) to a single computer/ip, while
> a domain name encompasses a whole buch of host names. Anyway, that was
> the sense in which I interpreted the term "domain name". If it is not
> the sense in which the OP used the term, I apologize. 
> Getting bogged down in semantics rarely leads to fruitful discussions. 

It isn't that a domain name is necessarily also a host name, it's that
the RFC allows it to be.  You may prefer that administrators never have
a host with the same name as the domain, but that isn't going to stop
them from doing it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3563

On 2015-10-19, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
> William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes:
>
>> On 2015-10-19, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> writes:
>>>> On 10/18/15 17:25, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>> Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 10/18/15 14:32, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>>>> This is nonsense.  www.google.com is a domain name.  See RFC1034 for
>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> google.com is the domain name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> www.google.com is a host name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> www.google.com is NOT a domain name, that non-sense started with web
>>>>>> masters/devs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously you didn???t follow the suggestion to see RFC1034.
>>>>>
>>>> Obviously you didn???t understand RFC1034
>>>
>>> s3.1 is pretty clear about the definition of ???domain name???.  Which part
>>> do you think contradicts it?
>>
>> As I understand it, for you there domain name encompasses host name. A
>> host name
>> is also a domain name. For some people a
>> distinction is nice, and the word "domain name" differs in that a domain
>> name normally implies that there are a number of host names associated
>> with it, and a hostname refers (usually) to a single computer/ip, while
>> a domain name encompasses a whole buch of host names. Anyway, that was
>> the sense in which I interpreted the term "domain name". If it is not
>> the sense in which the OP used the term, I apologize. 
>> Getting bogged down in semantics rarely leads to fruitful discussions. 
>
> It isn't that a domain name is necessarily also a host name, it's that

No I am saying that a host name is necessarily also a domain name, seems
to be that point of the dispute. 

> the RFC allows it to be.  You may prefer that administrators never have
> a host with the same name as the domain, but that isn't going to stop
> them from doing it.

You mean like physics.ubc.ca which is a host name and
info.physics.ubc.ca which is also a host name. 

I am willing to accept that physics.ubc.ca is both a hostname and a
domain name, but info.physics.ubc.ca is a host name only. The
interpretation of RFC1034 appears to be that info.physics.ubc.ca is also
a domain name. Not can be, but is. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3567

On Monday October 19 2015 13:37, in comp.os.linux.networking, "William Unruh"
<unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:

> On 2015-10-19, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>> William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes:
>>
>>> On 2015-10-19, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> writes:
>>>>> On 10/18/15 17:25, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>>> Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> writes:
>>>>>>> On 10/18/15 14:32, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>>>>> This is nonsense.  www.google.com is a domain name.  See RFC1034 for
>>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> google.com is the domain name.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> www.google.com is a host name.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> www.google.com is NOT a domain name, that non-sense started with web
>>>>>>> masters/devs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously you didn???t follow the suggestion to see RFC1034.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously you didn???t understand RFC1034
>>>>
>>>> s3.1 is pretty clear about the definition of ???domain name???.  Which
>>>> part do you think contradicts it?
>>>
>>> As I understand it, for you there domain name encompasses host name. A
>>> host name
>>> is also a domain name. For some people a
>>> distinction is nice, and the word "domain name" differs in that a domain
>>> name normally implies that there are a number of host names associated
>>> with it, and a hostname refers (usually) to a single computer/ip, while
>>> a domain name encompasses a whole buch of host names. Anyway, that was
>>> the sense in which I interpreted the term "domain name". If it is not
>>> the sense in which the OP used the term, I apologize.
>>> Getting bogged down in semantics rarely leads to fruitful discussions.
>>
>> It isn't that a domain name is necessarily also a host name, it's that
> 
> No I am saying that a host name is necessarily also a domain name, seems
> to be that point of the dispute.
> 
>> the RFC allows it to be.  You may prefer that administrators never have
>> a host with the same name as the domain, but that isn't going to stop
>> them from doing it.
> 
> You mean like physics.ubc.ca which is a host name and
> info.physics.ubc.ca which is also a host name.
> 
> I am willing to accept that physics.ubc.ca is both a hostname and a
> domain name, but info.physics.ubc.ca is a host name only. The
> interpretation of RFC1034 appears to be that info.physics.ubc.ca is also
> a domain name. Not can be, but is.

It is (to me) easier to understand the domain name system if I divorce it
from "host"s and "IP address"es.

RFC1034 describes names as abstract entities, analogous (to me) to file
pathnames.

Think of the /usr unix path hierarchy, for instance.
  /usr
is a pathname. The thing that
  /usr
describes has (or lacks) certain attributes (filesize, permission bits, etc).
That it has (or lacks) these attributes doesn't invalidate the designation
of /usr as a pathname.

But, under this, there is more
  /usr/local
is also a pathname. The thing that
  /usr/local
describes has (or lacks) certain attributes (filesize, permission bits, etc).
That it has (or lacks) these attributes doesn't invalidate the designation
of /usr/local as a pathname.

Additionally, that
  /usr/local
is a pathname doesn't invalidate
  /usr
as a pathname either.

And so on, through
  /usr/local/src
to
  /usr/local/src/flite-2.0.0-release/include/flite.h

Each step results in a pathname, and a node that has (or lacks) certain
attributes.

Similarly, the Domain Name System defines a "pathname", which they call
a "domain name". Each refinement of "domain name" results in another "domain
name". And, each "domain name" has (or lacks) certain attributes (mail
exchanger, IP address, Chaosnet address, Hesiod address, etc).

Thus
  com
is a domain name, which lacks most attributes (including IP address). And
  google.com
is a domain name, which has multiple IPV4 addresses, a single IPv6 address,
and multiple mail exchanges. And
  www.google.com
is /also/ a domain name, and also has multiple IPV4 addresses, and a single
IPv6 address.

HTH
-- 
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"
PGP public key available upon request

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3568

On 10/20/15 14:52, Lew Pitcher wrote:
> On Monday October 19 2015 13:37, in comp.os.linux.networking, "William Unruh"
> <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-10-19, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>> William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-10-19, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 10/18/15 17:25, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>>>> Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 10/18/15 14:32, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>>>>>> This is nonsense.  www.google.com is a domain name.  See RFC1034 for
>>>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> google.com is the domain name.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> www.google.com is a host name.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> www.google.com is NOT a domain name, that non-sense started with web
>>>>>>>> masters/devs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously you didn???t follow the suggestion to see RFC1034.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously you didn???t understand RFC1034
>>>>>
>>>>> s3.1 is pretty clear about the definition of ???domain name???.  Which
>>>>> part do you think contradicts it?
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it, for you there domain name encompasses host name. A
>>>> host name
>>>> is also a domain name. For some people a
>>>> distinction is nice, and the word "domain name" differs in that a domain
>>>> name normally implies that there are a number of host names associated
>>>> with it, and a hostname refers (usually) to a single computer/ip, while
>>>> a domain name encompasses a whole buch of host names. Anyway, that was
>>>> the sense in which I interpreted the term "domain name". If it is not
>>>> the sense in which the OP used the term, I apologize.
>>>> Getting bogged down in semantics rarely leads to fruitful discussions.
>>>
>>> It isn't that a domain name is necessarily also a host name, it's that
>>
>> No I am saying that a host name is necessarily also a domain name, seems
>> to be that point of the dispute.
>>
>>> the RFC allows it to be.  You may prefer that administrators never have
>>> a host with the same name as the domain, but that isn't going to stop
>>> them from doing it.
>>
>> You mean like physics.ubc.ca which is a host name and
>> info.physics.ubc.ca which is also a host name.
>>
>> I am willing to accept that physics.ubc.ca is both a hostname and a
>> domain name, but info.physics.ubc.ca is a host name only. The
>> interpretation of RFC1034 appears to be that info.physics.ubc.ca is also
>> a domain name. Not can be, but is.
>
> It is (to me) easier to understand the domain name system if I divorce it
> from "host"s and "IP address"es.
>
> RFC1034 describes names as abstract entities, analogous (to me) to file
> pathnames.
>
> Think of the /usr unix path hierarchy, for instance.
>    /usr
> is a pathname. The thing that
>    /usr
> describes has (or lacks) certain attributes (filesize, permission bits, etc).
> That it has (or lacks) these attributes doesn't invalidate the designation
> of /usr as a pathname.
>
> But, under this, there is more
>    /usr/local
> is also a pathname. The thing that
>    /usr/local
> describes has (or lacks) certain attributes (filesize, permission bits, etc).
> That it has (or lacks) these attributes doesn't invalidate the designation
> of /usr/local as a pathname.
>
> Additionally, that
>    /usr/local
> is a pathname doesn't invalidate
>    /usr
> as a pathname either.
>
> And so on, through
>    /usr/local/src
> to
>    /usr/local/src/flite-2.0.0-release/include/flite.h
>
> Each step results in a pathname, and a node that has (or lacks) certain
> attributes.
>
> Similarly, the Domain Name System defines a "pathname", which they call
> a "domain name". Each refinement of "domain name" results in another "domain
> name". And, each "domain name" has (or lacks) certain attributes (mail
> exchanger, IP address, Chaosnet address, Hesiod address, etc).
>
> Thus
>    com
> is a domain name, which lacks most attributes (including IP address). And
>    google.com
> is a domain name, which has multiple IPV4 addresses, a single IPv6 address,
> and multiple mail exchanges. And
>    www.google.com
> is /also/ a domain name, and also has multiple IPV4 addresses, and a single
> IPv6 address.
>
> HTH
>

You might hear the term Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) and become 
confused because that term seems to imply that something like 
bob.accounting.bobsemployer.com is a domain name instead of a hostname. 
I think that the term should have been called Fully Qualified Domain 
Hostname or maybe Fully Qualified DNS Name, because in the FQDN term, 
Domain Name doesn't mean "domain name" like bobsemployer.com, it means 
"the name on the domain", so the term can be misleading, although its 
used in many official documents and program descriptions just by rote.

On the public part of the Internet, we all utilize a DNS infrastructure 
that use global top level domains like .com, .net, .org, .us, .fr, etc. 
Then people can purchase or accquire domains on those gTLDs such as 
bobsdomain.com. Then we often see hostnames like www.bobsdomain.com or 
blog.bobsdomain.com used under that. These are actually called logical 
hostnames because usually they are just names pointing at a single host. 
Often times the host they are pointing to has its own hostname called 
whatever the owner wants to call it, like myrtle.bobsdomain.com.

Probably a lot of the confusion came about because some web hosting 
companies started calling hostnames like blog.bobsdomain.com subdomains, 
where they are not. blog.bobsdomain.com is only a sub domain if there 
are DNS records underneath it, like mary.blog.bobsdomain.com.

For the most part, you can simply follow this rule "domains encapsulate 
hostnames". Most people don't need to think about what DNS zones are, 
just leave that to DNS administrators. Resources on the network 
generally don't care or even know what their hostnames are or what 
hostnames might be pointing to them. They are mostly there for human 
reference and ease of use of the network.

For example, the hostname www.toyota.com refers to a World Wide Web 
server named "www" in the toyota.com domain (the network associated with 
the Toyota automotive company). The hostname ftp.stanford.edu refers to 
an FTP server named "ftp" on Stanford University's local network (the 
domain stanford.edu)


hostname is the name given to the end-point (the machine in question)
         and will be used to identify it over DNS if that is configured
     domain is the name given to the 'network'
         it will be required to reach the network from an external point 
(like the Internet)

It is usually written in the form,

     hostname.domain.com -- for example

If you are in (say) a college campus named called 'The-University',
and its domain is called 'theuniversity.org',
a machine on the campus network called 'mymachine' would be addressed 
as, 'mymachine.theuniversity.org'.

If you were trying to connect to this machine from your home network,
you would address it with that full name.
The domain part would reach you to the campus network
and the hostname would let you reach the exact machine in the campus.
I am avoiding the details of IP Addressing and gateways here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3569

On 2015-10-20, Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> On 10/20/15 14:52, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>> On Monday October 19 2015 13:37, in comp.os.linux.networking, "William Unruh"
>> <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-10-19, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>>> William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2015-10-19, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> writes:
>>>>>>> On 10/18/15 17:25, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>>>>> Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/18/15 14:32, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> This is nonsense.  www.google.com is a domain name.  See RFC1034 for
>>>>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> google.com is the domain name.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> www.google.com is a host name.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> www.google.com is NOT a domain name, that non-sense started with web
>>>>>>>>> masters/devs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obviously you didn???t follow the suggestion to see RFC1034.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously you didn???t understand RFC1034
>>>>>>
>>>>>> s3.1 is pretty clear about the definition of ???domain name???.  Which
>>>>>> part do you think contradicts it?
>>>>>
>>>>> As I understand it, for you there domain name encompasses host name. A
>>>>> host name
>>>>> is also a domain name. For some people a
>>>>> distinction is nice, and the word "domain name" differs in that a domain
>>>>> name normally implies that there are a number of host names associated
>>>>> with it, and a hostname refers (usually) to a single computer/ip, while
>>>>> a domain name encompasses a whole buch of host names. Anyway, that was
>>>>> the sense in which I interpreted the term "domain name". If it is not
>>>>> the sense in which the OP used the term, I apologize.
>>>>> Getting bogged down in semantics rarely leads to fruitful discussions.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't that a domain name is necessarily also a host name, it's that
>>>
>>> No I am saying that a host name is necessarily also a domain name, seems
>>> to be that point of the dispute.
>>>
>>>> the RFC allows it to be.  You may prefer that administrators never have
>>>> a host with the same name as the domain, but that isn't going to stop
>>>> them from doing it.
>>>
>>> You mean like physics.ubc.ca which is a host name and
>>> info.physics.ubc.ca which is also a host name.
>>>
>>> I am willing to accept that physics.ubc.ca is both a hostname and a
>>> domain name, but info.physics.ubc.ca is a host name only. The
>>> interpretation of RFC1034 appears to be that info.physics.ubc.ca is also
>>> a domain name. Not can be, but is.
>>
>> It is (to me) easier to understand the domain name system if I divorce it
>> from "host"s and "IP address"es.
>>
>> RFC1034 describes names as abstract entities, analogous (to me) to file
>> pathnames.
>>
>> Think of the /usr unix path hierarchy, for instance.
>>    /usr
>> is a pathname. The thing that
>>    /usr
>> describes has (or lacks) certain attributes (filesize, permission bits, etc).
>> That it has (or lacks) these attributes doesn't invalidate the designation
>> of /usr as a pathname.
>>
>> But, under this, there is more
>>    /usr/local
>> is also a pathname. The thing that
>>    /usr/local
>> describes has (or lacks) certain attributes (filesize, permission bits, etc).
>> That it has (or lacks) these attributes doesn't invalidate the designation
>> of /usr/local as a pathname.
>>
>> Additionally, that
>>    /usr/local
>> is a pathname doesn't invalidate
>>    /usr
>> as a pathname either.
>>
>> And so on, through
>>    /usr/local/src
>> to
>>    /usr/local/src/flite-2.0.0-release/include/flite.h
>>
>> Each step results in a pathname, and a node that has (or lacks) certain
>> attributes.
>>
>> Similarly, the Domain Name System defines a "pathname", which they call
>> a "domain name". Each refinement of "domain name" results in another "domain
>> name". And, each "domain name" has (or lacks) certain attributes (mail
>> exchanger, IP address, Chaosnet address, Hesiod address, etc).
>>
>> Thus
>>    com
>> is a domain name, which lacks most attributes (including IP address). And
>>    google.com
>> is a domain name, which has multiple IPV4 addresses, a single IPv6 address,
>> and multiple mail exchanges. And
>>    www.google.com
>> is /also/ a domain name, and also has multiple IPV4 addresses, and a single
>> IPv6 address.
>>
>> HTH
>>
>
> You might hear the term Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) and become 
> confused because that term seems to imply that something like 
> bob.accounting.bobsemployer.com is a domain name instead of a hostname. 
> I think that the term should have been called Fully Qualified Domain 
> Hostname or maybe Fully Qualified DNS Name, because in the FQDN term, 
> Domain Name doesn't mean "domain name" like bobsemployer.com, it means 
> "the name on the domain", so the term can be misleading, although its 
> used in many official documents and program descriptions just by rote.
>
> On the public part of the Internet, we all utilize a DNS infrastructure 
> that use global top level domains like .com, .net, .org, .us, .fr, etc. 
> Then people can purchase or accquire domains on those gTLDs such as 
> bobsdomain.com. Then we often see hostnames like www.bobsdomain.com or 
> blog.bobsdomain.com used under that. These are actually called logical 
> hostnames because usually they are just names pointing at a single host. 
> Often times the host they are pointing to has its own hostname called 
> whatever the owner wants to call it, like myrtle.bobsdomain.com.
>
> Probably a lot of the confusion came about because some web hosting 
> companies started calling hostnames like blog.bobsdomain.com subdomains, 
> where they are not. blog.bobsdomain.com is only a sub domain if there 
> are DNS records underneath it, like mary.blog.bobsdomain.com.
>
> For the most part, you can simply follow this rule "domains encapsulate 
> hostnames". Most people don't need to think about what DNS zones are, 
> just leave that to DNS administrators. Resources on the network 
> generally don't care or even know what their hostnames are or what 
> hostnames might be pointing to them. They are mostly there for human 
> reference and ease of use of the network.
>
> For example, the hostname www.toyota.com refers to a World Wide Web 
> server named "www" in the toyota.com domain (the network associated with 
> the Toyota automotive company). The hostname ftp.stanford.edu refers to 
> an FTP server named "ftp" on Stanford University's local network (the 
> domain stanford.edu)
>
>
> hostname is the name given to the end-point (the machine in question)
>          and will be used to identify it over DNS if that is configured
>      domain is the name given to the 'network'
>          it will be required to reach the network from an external point 
> (like the Internet)
>
> It is usually written in the form,
>
>      hostname.domain.com -- for example
>
> If you are in (say) a college campus named called 'The-University',
> and its domain is called 'theuniversity.org',
> a machine on the campus network called 'mymachine' would be addressed 
> as, 'mymachine.theuniversity.org'.
>
> If you were trying to connect to this machine from your home network,
> you would address it with that full name.
> The domain part would reach you to the campus network
> and the hostname would let you reach the exact machine in the campus.
> I am avoiding the details of IP Addressing and gateways here.
>

Of course this is confused by a couple of things. Sometimes a "domain
name" is also a host name. physics.ubc.ca is an example. The name points
to a specific host, but also is a subdomain -- info.physics.ubc.ca is an
example of another host. 

Also sometime what are host names www.google.com actually point to a
huge bunch of IP addresses, which are round-robined by the routers.
ping www.google.com
PING www.google.com (173.194.33.147) 56(84) bytes of data.
ping www.google.com
PING www.google.com (173.194.33.144) 56(84) bytes of data.

So it is ia bit of a mess.

>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3572

On 10/20/15 21:47, William Unruh wrote:
> On 2015-10-20, Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>> On 10/20/15 14:52, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>> On Monday October 19 2015 13:37, in comp.os.linux.networking, "William Unruh"
>>> <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-10-19, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>>>> William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-10-19, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 10/18/15 17:25, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/18/15 14:32, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> This is nonsense.  www.google.com is a domain name.  See RFC1034 for
>>>>>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> google.com is the domain name.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> www.google.com is a host name.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> www.google.com is NOT a domain name, that non-sense started with web
>>>>>>>>>> masters/devs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Obviously you didn???t follow the suggestion to see RFC1034.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obviously you didn???t understand RFC1034
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> s3.1 is pretty clear about the definition of ???domain name???.  Which
>>>>>>> part do you think contradicts it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I understand it, for you there domain name encompasses host name. A
>>>>>> host name
>>>>>> is also a domain name. For some people a
>>>>>> distinction is nice, and the word "domain name" differs in that a domain
>>>>>> name normally implies that there are a number of host names associated
>>>>>> with it, and a hostname refers (usually) to a single computer/ip, while
>>>>>> a domain name encompasses a whole buch of host names. Anyway, that was
>>>>>> the sense in which I interpreted the term "domain name". If it is not
>>>>>> the sense in which the OP used the term, I apologize.
>>>>>> Getting bogged down in semantics rarely leads to fruitful discussions.
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't that a domain name is necessarily also a host name, it's that
>>>>
>>>> No I am saying that a host name is necessarily also a domain name, seems
>>>> to be that point of the dispute.
>>>>
>>>>> the RFC allows it to be.  You may prefer that administrators never have
>>>>> a host with the same name as the domain, but that isn't going to stop
>>>>> them from doing it.
>>>>
>>>> You mean like physics.ubc.ca which is a host name and
>>>> info.physics.ubc.ca which is also a host name.
>>>>
>>>> I am willing to accept that physics.ubc.ca is both a hostname and a
>>>> domain name, but info.physics.ubc.ca is a host name only. The
>>>> interpretation of RFC1034 appears to be that info.physics.ubc.ca is also
>>>> a domain name. Not can be, but is.
>>>
>>> It is (to me) easier to understand the domain name system if I divorce it
>>> from "host"s and "IP address"es.
>>>
>>> RFC1034 describes names as abstract entities, analogous (to me) to file
>>> pathnames.
>>>
>>> Think of the /usr unix path hierarchy, for instance.
>>>     /usr
>>> is a pathname. The thing that
>>>     /usr
>>> describes has (or lacks) certain attributes (filesize, permission bits, etc).
>>> That it has (or lacks) these attributes doesn't invalidate the designation
>>> of /usr as a pathname.
>>>
>>> But, under this, there is more
>>>     /usr/local
>>> is also a pathname. The thing that
>>>     /usr/local
>>> describes has (or lacks) certain attributes (filesize, permission bits, etc).
>>> That it has (or lacks) these attributes doesn't invalidate the designation
>>> of /usr/local as a pathname.
>>>
>>> Additionally, that
>>>     /usr/local
>>> is a pathname doesn't invalidate
>>>     /usr
>>> as a pathname either.
>>>
>>> And so on, through
>>>     /usr/local/src
>>> to
>>>     /usr/local/src/flite-2.0.0-release/include/flite.h
>>>
>>> Each step results in a pathname, and a node that has (or lacks) certain
>>> attributes.
>>>
>>> Similarly, the Domain Name System defines a "pathname", which they call
>>> a "domain name". Each refinement of "domain name" results in another "domain
>>> name". And, each "domain name" has (or lacks) certain attributes (mail
>>> exchanger, IP address, Chaosnet address, Hesiod address, etc).
>>>
>>> Thus
>>>     com
>>> is a domain name, which lacks most attributes (including IP address). And
>>>     google.com
>>> is a domain name, which has multiple IPV4 addresses, a single IPv6 address,
>>> and multiple mail exchanges. And
>>>     www.google.com
>>> is /also/ a domain name, and also has multiple IPV4 addresses, and a single
>>> IPv6 address.
>>>
>>> HTH
>>>
>>
>> You might hear the term Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) and become
>> confused because that term seems to imply that something like
>> bob.accounting.bobsemployer.com is a domain name instead of a hostname.
>> I think that the term should have been called Fully Qualified Domain
>> Hostname or maybe Fully Qualified DNS Name, because in the FQDN term,
>> Domain Name doesn't mean "domain name" like bobsemployer.com, it means
>> "the name on the domain", so the term can be misleading, although its
>> used in many official documents and program descriptions just by rote.
>>
>> On the public part of the Internet, we all utilize a DNS infrastructure
>> that use global top level domains like .com, .net, .org, .us, .fr, etc.
>> Then people can purchase or accquire domains on those gTLDs such as
>> bobsdomain.com. Then we often see hostnames like www.bobsdomain.com or
>> blog.bobsdomain.com used under that. These are actually called logical
>> hostnames because usually they are just names pointing at a single host.
>> Often times the host they are pointing to has its own hostname called
>> whatever the owner wants to call it, like myrtle.bobsdomain.com.
>>
>> Probably a lot of the confusion came about because some web hosting
>> companies started calling hostnames like blog.bobsdomain.com subdomains,
>> where they are not. blog.bobsdomain.com is only a sub domain if there
>> are DNS records underneath it, like mary.blog.bobsdomain.com.
>>
>> For the most part, you can simply follow this rule "domains encapsulate
>> hostnames". Most people don't need to think about what DNS zones are,
>> just leave that to DNS administrators. Resources on the network
>> generally don't care or even know what their hostnames are or what
>> hostnames might be pointing to them. They are mostly there for human
>> reference and ease of use of the network.
>>
>> For example, the hostname www.toyota.com refers to a World Wide Web
>> server named "www" in the toyota.com domain (the network associated with
>> the Toyota automotive company). The hostname ftp.stanford.edu refers to
>> an FTP server named "ftp" on Stanford University's local network (the
>> domain stanford.edu)
>>
>>
>> hostname is the name given to the end-point (the machine in question)
>>           and will be used to identify it over DNS if that is configured
>>       domain is the name given to the 'network'
>>           it will be required to reach the network from an external point
>> (like the Internet)
>>
>> It is usually written in the form,
>>
>>       hostname.domain.com -- for example
>>
>> If you are in (say) a college campus named called 'The-University',
>> and its domain is called 'theuniversity.org',
>> a machine on the campus network called 'mymachine' would be addressed
>> as, 'mymachine.theuniversity.org'.
>>
>> If you were trying to connect to this machine from your home network,
>> you would address it with that full name.
>> The domain part would reach you to the campus network
>> and the hostname would let you reach the exact machine in the campus.
>> I am avoiding the details of IP Addressing and gateways here.
>>
>
> Of course this is confused by a couple of things. Sometimes a "domain
> name" is also a host name. physics.ubc.ca is an example. The name points
> to a specific host, but also is a subdomain -- info.physics.ubc.ca is an
> example of another host.

It shouldn't be if you are a sane network admin.

>
> Also sometime what are host names www.google.com actually point to a
> huge bunch of IP addresses, which are round-robined by the routers.
> ping www.google.com
> PING www.google.com (173.194.33.147) 56(84) bytes of data.
> ping www.google.com
> PING www.google.com (173.194.33.144) 56(84) bytes of data.

Yes for load balancing

>
> So it is ia bit of a mess.
>

No giant mess

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3570

On Tue, 2015-10-20, Baho Utot wrote:
...
> You might hear the term Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) and become 
> confused because that term seems to imply that something like 
> bob.accounting.bobsemployer.com is a domain name instead of a hostname. 

I'm a bit confused: didn't we learn upthread that it /is/ a domain
name, as defined by the RFCs?  That all the names in DNS are domain
names.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3573

On 10/21/15 06:54, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-10-20, Baho Utot wrote:
> ...
>> You might hear the term Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) and become
>> confused because that term seems to imply that something like
>> bob.accounting.bobsemployer.com is a domain name instead of a hostname.
>
> I'm a bit confused: didn't we learn upthread that it /is/ a domain
> name, as defined by the RFCs?  That all the names in DNS are domain
> names.
>
> /Jorgen
>

Not really,

To be more specific, names that are in DNS are host names.  Why would 
you be looking for a domain ( it should not respond ) when it is a host 
you want to connect to.

This is what DNS was designed for, looking up a host from a "name". So 
you don't need to remember the IP for that host.  Without DNS you would 
need to keep all the hosts you want/like to connect to in your 
/etc/hosts file and that would be gruesome.

As I said before blame the web folks for messing this up as in web 
domain is not equal to tcp/ip domain.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3574

Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>On 10/21/15 06:54, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>> On Tue, 2015-10-20, Baho Utot wrote:
>>> You might hear the term Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) and become
>>> confused because that term seems to imply that something like
>>> bob.accounting.bobsemployer.com is a domain name instead of a hostname.
>>
>> I'm a bit confused: didn't we learn upthread that it /is/ a domain
>> name, as defined by the RFCs?  That all the names in DNS are domain
>> names.
>
>Not really,
>
>To be more specific, names that are in DNS are host names.  Why would 
>you be looking for a domain ( it should not respond ) when it is a host 
>you want to connect to.

Jorgen is right, you're wrong. DNS only talks about domain names.
You're confusing domains, zones and hosts.

How would a domain "respond"? Only hosts can respond.

Nobody stops you from assigning a domain name to a host, though. This
is what we usually do. You're confusing this.

>This is what DNS was designed for, looking up a host from a "name".

DNS was designed to store and look up some kinds of data for domain
names. The vast majory of lookups look up IP addresses for domain
names, followed by looking up the domain name of name servers for a
given domain, and looking up the domain name of mail exchangers for a
given domain.

>So 
>you don't need to remember the IP for that host.  Without DNS you would 
>need to keep all the hosts you want/like to connect to in your 
>/etc/hosts file and that would be gruesome.

Right, but looking up the IP address associated with a host's domain
name is only one of the things that DNS is useful.

>As I said before blame the web folks for messing this up as in web 
>domain is not equal to tcp/ip domain.

There is no such thing as a "web domain", and there is no such thing
as a "tcp/ip domain".

Greetings
Marc
-- 
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3577

On 10/22/15 02:57, Marc Haber wrote:
> Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>> On 10/21/15 06:54, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2015-10-20, Baho Utot wrote:
>>>> You might hear the term Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) and become
>>>> confused because that term seems to imply that something like
>>>> bob.accounting.bobsemployer.com is a domain name instead of a hostname.
>>>
>>> I'm a bit confused: didn't we learn upthread that it /is/ a domain
>>> name, as defined by the RFCs?  That all the names in DNS are domain
>>> names.
>>
>> Not really,
>>
>> To be more specific, names that are in DNS are host names.  Why would
>> you be looking for a domain ( it should not respond ) when it is a host
>> you want to connect to.
>
> Jorgen is right, you're wrong. DNS only talks about domain names.
> You're confusing domains, zones and hosts.

Really?
You really need to go read the RFC which some why, what, when and where 
DNS came into existenca

>
> How would a domain "respond"? Only hosts can respond.
>
> Nobody stops you from assigning a domain name to a host, though. This
> is what we usually do. You're confusing this.

No you are confusing that

>
>> This is what DNS was designed for, looking up a host from a "name".
>
> DNS was designed to store and look up some kinds of data for domain
> names. The vast majory of lookups look up IP addresses for domain
> names, followed by looking up the domain name of name servers for a
> given domain, and looking up the domain name of mail exchangers for a
> given domain.

No consult the RFCs for DNS

>
>> So
>> you don't need to remember the IP for that host.  Without DNS you would
>> need to keep all the hosts you want/like to connect to in your
>> /etc/hosts file and that would be gruesome.
>
> Right, but looking up the IP address associated with a host's domain
> name is only one of the things that DNS is useful.
>
>> As I said before blame the web folks for messing this up as in web
>> domain is not equal to tcp/ip domain.
>
> There is no such thing as a "web domain", and there is no such thing
> as a "tcp/ip domain".

Are you a web developer?  If not that explains it

>
> Greetings
> Marc
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3578

On Thu, 2015-10-22, Baho Utot wrote:
> On 10/22/15 02:57, Marc Haber wrote:
>> Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/21/15 06:54, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2015-10-20, Baho Utot wrote:
>>>>> You might hear the term Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) and become
>>>>> confused because that term seems to imply that something like
>>>>> bob.accounting.bobsemployer.com is a domain name instead of a hostname.
>>>>
>>>> I'm a bit confused: didn't we learn upthread that it /is/ a domain
>>>> name, as defined by the RFCs?  That all the names in DNS are domain
>>>> names.
>>>
>>> Not really,
>>>
>>> To be more specific, names that are in DNS are host names.  Why would
>>> you be looking for a domain ( it should not respond ) when it is a host
>>> you want to connect to.
>>
>> Jorgen is right, you're wrong. DNS only talks about domain names.
>> You're confusing domains, zones and hosts.
>
> Really?
> You really need to go read the RFC which some why, what, when and where 
> DNS came into existenca

Didn't we do that once already?

    RFC 1034
    https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1034.txt
    DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES

    The domain name space is a tree structure.  Each node and leaf on
    the tree corresponds to a resource set (which may be empty).  The
    domain system makes no distinctions between the uses of the
    interior nodes and leaves, and this memo uses the term "node" to
    refer to both.

    Each node has a label, which is zero to 63 octets in length. [...]

    The domain name of a node is the list of the labels on the path
    from the node to the root of the tree.  By convention, the labels
    that compose a domain name are printed or read left to right, from
    the most specific (lowest, farthest from the root) to the least
    specific (highest, closest to the root).

I don't know how that could have been stated more clearly. If this
doesn't help, the discussion is hopeless and I'll leave it with no
further comments.

It's true that "domain name" has other, informal meanings[0], but then
it needs to be stated clearly that we're talking about one of those:
talking about different things using overlapping names is a great way
of getting nothing done.

/Jorgen

[0] And I admit that I was confused by that, before whoever-it-was
    quoted the RFC upthread (thank you!).

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3579

Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>> There is no such thing as a "web domain", and there is no such thing
>> as a "tcp/ip domain".
>
>Are you a web developer?  If not that explains it

I am ignoring your other insults, knowing that I am right. There is no
point in discussing things with people who dont want to learn.

I'd rather have you show me one RFC that defines what a "web domain"
is, just for the laughs. I am ready to apologize in case you should
find one.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.networking

csiph-web