From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Websites  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Websites.
WikiProject Websites / Computing   
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.


Is it just me, or have,, and gone down? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the Wayback Machine it seems to have happened in 2005 (com, net, org). Not simultaneously for all of them, though. Bromskloss 09:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
=/ Surely this is not a good thing, long ago as it may have happened. Shouldn't there be.... someone, who should deal with this? --Jeremy Banks 12:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. The sites server still respond to pings. --Jeremy Banks 22:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
RFC 2606 (you can read it, it's short) does not say that the mentioned addresses should respond with a web page (nor are they required to respond in any other way). On a side note, "", "", "", "", "" and "" all resolve to the same IP address, namely "". —Bromskloss 10:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
They're up again. —Bromskloss 16:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Down again! -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 11:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This must have been some ICANN employee who has taken them down... Last few lines of a traceroute to

18   207 ms   208 ms   210 ms [129.250.4
19   192 ms   192 ms   192 ms
20   195 ms   192 ms   192 ms []
21   191 ms   193 ms   194 ms []
22   199 ms   192 ms   194 ms []

Mbimmler 16:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Contacted ICANN to get more information about this. Mbimmler 17:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And up again. Mbimmler 14:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC) redirects to porn :([edit]

And that sucks! Here I was, adding an example link, and it gets reverted. OK, I undo the revert and think "stupid bot", well I then copy and paste the link, and I get porn!

Needless to say the link is now Wikipeida rather then still doesn't work either. AFA 23:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's fine here. (Points to, which doesn't have a web server running, but that's not that important). Perhaps your computer is infected, or your ISP is ripping you off? –EdC 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
bah. Now it isn't. It was only and not or (these two not resolving). But now, none of them resolve. I guess that bit can be removed now. I'll get onto it. AFA 15:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC) (hah I remembered to sign this time you stupid bot!)
Strictly speaking, they do resolve (to, it's just that there isn't a web server at that address to respond to connection requests. Weird about the porn thing, though; it does happen that web addresses get hijacked, but I'm surprised that someone would go to the trouble of hijacking –EdC 23:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll believe you about that whole resolving thing. And I agree that it is weird that someone would hijack AFA

The IP address should not be included in the article[edit]

1) It's not relevant: the RFC is about the reservation of the name; the IP address is incidental information

2) It's subject to change: It's already changed once before, and it will probably change again in the future. Anything could happen to it: it might change to a different IP, it might resolve to IPv6 in addition to IPv4, it might resolve to multiple IPs, it might not resolve to *any* IP (since there is no requirement that a DNS entry have an A or AAAA record), or it might not even exist in DNS in the future (since the RFC only reserves the name, with no provision that it exist in DNS, much less resolve to an IP that points to a real live server!)

3) It's confusing: It adds no useful information while potentially confusing readers (e.g., is this IP reserved as a part of the RFC? is this IP permanently linked to the domain and thus can be hard-coded?). At worst, it can lead uninformed users to start using the IP in lieu of the domain, which is just plain wrong.

4) This is information that can be very easily looked up.

Code65536 (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the IP out of the infobox because of these concerns. However, in order to build consensus I'd like to present some thoughts:
As for concern 1): this article is about the domain, and not merely about the act of reserving it. I feel that the IP is relevant for the associated domain.
Considering concern 2): Wikipedia has hosts of information that's subject to change. I see no reason for this making an exception. As for other potential forms the IP could take (e.g. IPv6), these could be presented alongside with the IPv4 form.
Taking into account concern 3) is important for further refining this article. In the future, the article text should be written so as to avoid said confusion. However, since Wikipedia is not a manual of any sort, it's the readers' responsibility to make sure they digest and implement knowledge they've gathered from articles correctly. Using the IP is of course bad for two reasons: first, it's a shared-hosting EdgeCast IP shared by some fifty other domains, and secondly, there are actual reserved IP addresses for example/documentation purposes.Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 23:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Source for ""?[edit]

It says "while it was reserved for the edu domain by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) since 2000", but there is no source linked/mentioned. -- (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


How can it be that resolves to some Russian spammers IP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdruiter (talkcontribs) 23:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)