You are arguing against facts that I have already clearly demonstrated. Get out Wireshark and test. Once again, mistakes made by an application-layer program (or spec!) do not invalidate the facts of underlying layers.…
> It is not a textual match, and this is observable at multiple points in the process. It is therefore a different hostname. It’s that simple. Except that it is, in fact, the same hostname. "It's that simple." This is…
Nope, that's definitely the same hostname, and will always resolve to the same IP address, barring some real weirdness (someone's system applying the search domain to a domain that already contains dots, and then…
Does a lookup for "ai." work without it? That is (explicitly, even!) a FQDN...
> As recommended by IETF standards track RFCs, existing deployed systems apply a search list to single-label names prior to attempting to resolve them. Note that it says "prior to" rather than "instead of". This is a…
You are arguing against facts that I have already clearly demonstrated. Get out Wireshark and test. Once again, mistakes made by an application-layer program (or spec!) do not invalidate the facts of underlying layers.…
> It is not a textual match, and this is observable at multiple points in the process. It is therefore a different hostname. It’s that simple. Except that it is, in fact, the same hostname. "It's that simple." This is…
Nope, that's definitely the same hostname, and will always resolve to the same IP address, barring some real weirdness (someone's system applying the search domain to a domain that already contains dots, and then…
Does a lookup for "ai." work without it? That is (explicitly, even!) a FQDN...
> As recommended by IETF standards track RFCs, existing deployed systems apply a search list to single-label names prior to attempting to resolve them. Note that it says "prior to" rather than "instead of". This is a…