Bug 176736

From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050923 Fedora/1.7.12-1.5.1

Description of problem:
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2181.html states:  11. Name syntax

The DNS itself places only one restriction on the particular labels
   that can be used to identify resource records.  That one restriction
   relates to the length of the label and the full name.  The length of
   any one label is limited to between 1 and 63 octets.  A full domain
   name is limited to 255 octets (including the separators).  The zero
   length full name is defined as representing the root of the DNS tree,
   and is typically written and displayed as ".".  Those restrictions
   aside, any binary string whatever can be used as the label of any
   resource record.  Similarly, any binary string can serve as the value
   of any record that includes a domain name as some or all of its value
   (SOA, NS, MX, PTR, CNAME, and any others that may be added).
   Implementations of the DNS protocols must not place any restrictions
   on the labels that can be used.  In particular, DNS servers must not
   refuse to serve a zone because it contains labels that might not be
   acceptable to some DNS client programs.  A DNS server may be
   configurable to issue warnings when loading, or even to refuse to
   load, a primary zone containing labels that might be considered
   questionable, however this should not happen by default.


This document, dated 1997 supercedes the ancient 1984  RFC-952 Dod document,
by specifically allowing any valid binary string for a domain name.



Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
bind-9.3.1-14_FC4

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. create hostname with underscore in name "_"
2. service named restart
3.
  

Actual Results:  bind fails to load that zone, with bad name (check-names) error

Expected Results:  zone should be allowed to load with underscore, as per rfc2181 as ANY BINARY string is allowed in hostname, and should not refuse to load a "questionable" primary zone containing such labels by default per the RFC.

Additional info:

silently failing to load zones following a normal upgrade or update SHOULD NOT OCCUR, as it silently takes multiple hosts and servers off the net. Particularly when these hosts have been operating on the net with these names for some time.