1 files changed, 283 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc2606.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc2606.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..43c56b3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc2606.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                     D. Eastlake
+Request for Comments: 2606                                  A. Panitz
+BCP: 32                                                     June 1999
+Category: Best Current Practice
+
+
+                      Reserved Top Level DNS Names
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
+   Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
+   improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion, a few top level
+   domain names are reserved for use in private testing, as examples in
+   documentation, and the like.  In addition, a few second level domain
+   names reserved for use as examples are documented.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1. Introduction............................................1
+   2. TLDs for Testing, & Documentation Examples..............2
+   3. Reserved Example Second Level Domain Names..............2
+   4. IANA Considerations.....................................3
+   5. Security Considerations.................................3
+   References.................................................3
+   Authors' Addresses.........................................4
+   Full Copyright Statement...................................5
+
+1. Introduction
+
+   The global Internet Domain Name System is documented in [RFC 1034,
+   1035, 1591] and numerous additional Requests for Comment.  It defines
+   a tree of names starting with root, ".", immediately below which are
+   top level domain names such as ".com" and ".us". Below top level
+   domain names there are normally additional levels of names.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Eastlake & Panitz        Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]
+
+RFC 2606              Reserved Top Level DNS Names             June 1999
+
+
+2. TLDs for Testing, & Documentation Examples
+
+   There is a need for top level domain (TLD) names that can be used for
+   creating names which, without fear of conflicts with current or
+   future actual TLD names in the global DNS, can be used for private
+   testing of existing DNS related code, examples in documentation, DNS
+   related experimentation, invalid DNS names, or other similar uses.
+
+   For example, without guidance, a site might set up some local
+   additional unused top level domains for testing of its local DNS code
+   and configuration. Later, these TLDs might come into actual use on
+   the global Internet.  As a result, local attempts to reference the
+   real data in these zones could be thwarted by the local test
+   versions.  Or test or example code might be written that accesses a
+   TLD that is in use with the thought that the test code would only be
+   run in a restricted testbed net or the example never actually run.
+   Later, the test code could escape from the testbed or the example be
+   actually coded and run on the Internet. Depending on the nature of
+   the test or example, it might be best for it to be referencing a TLD
+   permanently reserved for such purposes.
+
+   To safely satisfy these needs, four domain names are reserved as
+   listed and described below.
+
+                   .test
+                .example
+                .invalid
+              .localhost
+
+      ".test" is recommended for use in testing of current or new DNS
+      related code.
+
+      ".example" is recommended for use in documentation or as examples.
+
+      ".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain
+      names that are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a
+      glance are invalid.
+
+      The ".localhost" TLD has traditionally been statically defined in
+      host DNS implementations as having an A record pointing to the
+      loop back IP address and is reserved for such use.  Any other use
+      would conflict with widely deployed code which assumes this use.
+
+3. Reserved Example Second Level Domain Names
+
+   The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) also currently has the
+   following second level domain names reserved which can be used as
+   examples.
+
+
+
+Eastlake & Panitz        Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]
+
+RFC 2606              Reserved Top Level DNS Names             June 1999
+
+
+        example.com
+        example.net
+        example.org
+
+4. IANA Considerations
+
+   IANA has agreed to the four top level domain name reservations
+   specified in this document and will reserve them for the uses
+   indicated.
+
+5. Security Considerations
+
+   Confusion and conflict can be caused by the use of a current or
+   future top level domain name in experimentation or testing, as an
+   example in documentation, to indicate invalid names, or as a synonym
+   for the loop back address.  Test and experimental software can escape
+   and end up being run against the global operational DNS.  Even
+   examples used "only" in documentation can end up being coded and
+   released or cause conflicts due to later real use and the possible
+   acquisition of intellectual property rights in such "example" names.
+
+   The reservation of several top level domain names for these purposes
+   will minimize such confusion and conflict.
+
+References
+
+   [RFC 1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
+              STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
+
+   [RFC 1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
+              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
+
+   [RFC 1591] Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation",
+              RFC 1591, March 1994.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Eastlake & Panitz        Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]
+
+RFC 2606              Reserved Top Level DNS Names             June 1999
+
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+   Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
+   IBM
+   65 Shindegan Hill Road, RR #1
+   Carmel, NY 10512
+
+   Phone: +1 914-276-1668(h)
+          +1 914-784-7913(w)
+   FAX:   +1 914-784-3833(3)
+   EMail: dee3@us.ibm.com
+
+
+   Aliza R. Panitz
+   500 Stamford Dr. No. 310
+   Newark, DE 19711 USA
+
+   Phone: +1 302-738-1554
+   EMail: buglady@fuschia.net
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Eastlake & Panitz        Best Current Practice                  [Page 4]
+
+RFC 2606              Reserved Top Level DNS Names             June 1999
+
+
+Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Eastlake & Panitz        Best Current Practice                  [Page 5]
+