Skip to main content
replaced http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc with https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc
Source Link

Well, not exactly... What Wikipedia, and in turn the RFCs say is that since the original RFC 952RFC 952, which didn't allow leading numerics, you can now have them. ( Per RFC 1123RFC 1123 ) You still can't have all numeric though, which is your problem.

Your '6952' isn't a valid hostname, while '6952x' should be fine. But, RFCs aside, I've had problems within the last year or so with leading numerics. I'd avoid them, unless there's a compelling reason not to.

Well, not exactly... What Wikipedia, and in turn the RFCs say is that since the original RFC 952, which didn't allow leading numerics, you can now have them. ( Per RFC 1123 ) You still can't have all numeric though, which is your problem.

Your '6952' isn't a valid hostname, while '6952x' should be fine. But, RFCs aside, I've had problems within the last year or so with leading numerics. I'd avoid them, unless there's a compelling reason not to.

Well, not exactly... What Wikipedia, and in turn the RFCs say is that since the original RFC 952, which didn't allow leading numerics, you can now have them. ( Per RFC 1123 ) You still can't have all numeric though, which is your problem.

Your '6952' isn't a valid hostname, while '6952x' should be fine. But, RFCs aside, I've had problems within the last year or so with leading numerics. I'd avoid them, unless there's a compelling reason not to.

Source Link
pboin
  • 1.5k
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12

Well, not exactly... What Wikipedia, and in turn the RFCs say is that since the original RFC 952, which didn't allow leading numerics, you can now have them. ( Per RFC 1123 ) You still can't have all numeric though, which is your problem.

Your '6952' isn't a valid hostname, while '6952x' should be fine. But, RFCs aside, I've had problems within the last year or so with leading numerics. I'd avoid them, unless there's a compelling reason not to.