Bug 720956

Summary: UI: Hostname can't begin with Arabic number in Network page.
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Reporter: cshao <cshao>
Component: ovirt-nodeAssignee: Joey Boggs <jboggs>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Virtualization Bugs <virt-bugs>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 6.2CC: apevec, gouyang, leiwang, moli, ovirt-maint, ycui
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: ovirt-node-2.0.2-0.7.gitb88a4ee.el6 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-12-06 19:17:45 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
invalid hostname none

Description cshao 2011-07-13 10:56:14 UTC
Created attachment 512631 [details]
invalid hostname

Description of problem:
Hostname can't begin with Arabic number in Network page.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
rhev-hypervisor-6.2-0.5.el6

How reproducible:
100%

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Enter Network page, set hostname to Arabic number (e.g. 123).
2. Press tab button.
3. Please see attachment for more details.
  
Actual results:
Invalid hostname when configuration check. 
But can set hostname begin with Arabic number in command line.

Expected results:
Hostname can begin with Arabic number in Network page.

Additional info:

Comment 8 Alan Pevec 2011-08-12 21:13:31 UTC
*** Bug 730201 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 11 cshao 2011-08-31 10:16:13 UTC
I am not sure why the hostname should include at least alphabet?

Comment 12 Alan Pevec 2011-09-08 10:15:28 UTC
(In reply to comment #11)
> I am not sure why the hostname should include at least alphabet?

It can be numbers only, http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1123#page-13
"Don't use digits at the beginning of the name." recommendation is from rfc1178 but that rfc is information only, not a standard.

Comment 13 Guohua Ouyang 2011-09-14 02:10:59 UTC
according to comment #12 "It can be numbers only“, hence assign the bug back.

Comment 14 Joey Boggs 2011-09-14 13:21:32 UTC
changed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661594#c17

Comment 18 errata-xmlrpc 2011-12-06 19:17:45 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-1783.html