Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

.42: new experimental, all numeric top-level domain

wiki.42registry.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 46 posts

Re: .42: new experimental, all numeric top-level domain

#31

Post by qjz »

etherealG wrote: post #21
zck wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, only if someone tries to go to http://XXX.XXX.XXX.42 , which seems rare. I can't think of a way to tell whether XXX.XXX.XXX.42 is an IP or a website from that string alone. You could require that no subdomain has four "parts" (i.e., A.B.C.42), but that's harsh. You could require that somewhere in the URL for a four-part numeric-TLD URL there be a character. You could also require that at least one of the parts…

reading the rules from an rfc mentioned on the wiki, if XXX.XXX.XXX.42 is a valid IP address, the client should try to use that first, if not it should only then try to use DNS to resolve.

Reference: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1123#page-13

But note that the RFC assumes there will never be a numeric TLD. Furthermore, it suggests checking the string syntactically to determine if it's in dotted decimal form, remaining somewhat ambiguous about what to do if the hostname looks like IPv4, but the connection fails (it seems unwise to do a DNS lookup for every IPv4 address that's offline). Since IPv4 is relatively easy to validate, it would have made a lot more sense for a numeric TLD to select a number outside the range of 0-255, such as 4200. Then it's obvious that 1.2.3.4200 is a hostname (or harmless typo), and not an IP address.

Re: .42: new experimental, all numeric top-level domain

#32

Post by andfarm »

qjz wrote: post #31
etherealG wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

reading the rules from an rfc mentioned on the wiki, if XXX.XXX.XXX.42 is a valid IP address, the client should try to use that first, if not it should only then try to use DNS to resolve.

Reference: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1123#page-13 But note that the RFC assumes there will never be a numeric TLD. Furthermore, it suggests checking the string syntactically to determine if it's in dotted decimal form, remaining somewhat ambiguous about what to do if the hostname looks like IPv4, but the connection fails (it seems unwise to do a DNS lookup for every IPv4 address that's offline). Since IPv4 is rel…

A lot of parsers do support numbers outside 0-255, though, and treat them as "packed" addresses. For instance, 127.0.1, 32512.1 and 2130706433 are all sometimes treated as alternate representations of 127.0.0.1.

Re: .42: new experimental, all numeric top-level domain

#34

Post by JonnieCache »

moe wrote: post #4

Before anyone wonders: No, this isn't an official TLD. The domains you register there won't resolve for anyone unless they futz with their nameserver settings. I'm not sure what to make of this. Looks like a bunch of hackers got really bored and perhaps had a beer too many...

>Looks like a bunch of hackers got really bored and perhaps had a beer too many...

Many, many excellent projects are birthed this way.

I can only hope that one day, when I get drunk, my first instinct will be to start my own TLD. Right now, that generally isn't the foremost thing on my mind four pints in...

Re: .42: new experimental, all numeric top-level domain

#35

Post by JonnieCache »

edanm wrote: post #14
rick_2047 wrote: post #9

Why 42. Most of the early would be hackers and geeks and a prime number would seem way better.

42 is probably the most famous "geek-number", from Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)

Why 42?

“The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do'. I typed it out. End of story.”

Adams described his choice as 'a completely ordinary number, a number not just divisible by two but also six and seven. In fact it's the sort of number that you could without any fear introduce to your parents'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhikers_Gu...

Re: .42: new experimental, all numeric top-level domain

#39

Post by kilian »

I remember in the late 90s (when I was just out of the single digits) Dutch computer hobby magazines would regularly feature articles about the "alternet" or the "dark net", where they'd explain how you could visit so many more sites beyond the "normal" internet that were secret, "illegal" and exciting.

I'll never forget the screenshot they printed of a website with a photo of a sea and "Welcome to the atlantic ocean" on it: http://atlantic.ocean.

Re: .42: new experimental, all numeric top-level domain

#40

Post by lukev »

JonnieCache wrote: post #35
edanm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

42 is probably the most famous "geek-number", from Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)

Why 42? “The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do'. I typed it out. End of story.” Adams described his choice as 'a completely ordinary number, a number not just divisible by two but also six…

Of course, he would say that.
Post reply on HN