1 |
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On 12/19/2017 12:22 PM, R0b0t1 wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> There are; .local and .localhost are reserved TLDs. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> |
7 |
> .local is reserved for Apple's multicast DNS stuff, which requires names |
8 |
> to be resolved via a nonstandard method: |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Any DNS query for a name ending with ".local." MUST be sent to the |
11 |
> mDNS IPv4 link-local multicast address 224.0.0.251 (or its IPv6 |
12 |
> equivalent FF02::FB). |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Therefore anything that supports RFC 6762 will break if you name your |
15 |
> domain ".local". Likewise, .localhost is reserved by RFC 6761 which says |
16 |
> |
17 |
|
18 |
The "MUST" is contingent on whether or not you want to follow RFC |
19 |
6762. .local is reserved regardless. |
20 |
|
21 |
> Users may assume that IPv4 and IPv6 address queries for localhost |
22 |
> names will always resolve to the respective IP loopback address. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> ... |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Caching DNS servers SHOULD recognize localhost names as special |
27 |
> and SHOULD NOT attempt to look up NS records for them, or |
28 |
> otherwise query authoritative DNS servers in an attempt to |
29 |
> resolve localhost names. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> In other words, anything that supports RFC 6761 will break if you name |
32 |
> your domain ".localhost". |
33 |
> |
34 |
|
35 |
Most of these RFCs are talking about internet infrastructure that is |
36 |
not run by people of lowly and unimportant stature as myself. So I |
37 |
interpret "authoritative" to mean "external to my intranet." This |
38 |
contradicts the sentence above it. Such inconsistency can only be |
39 |
expected of Russians, so I view the standards body as compromized and |
40 |
morally bankrupt. |
41 |
|
42 |
As it is .localhost has strange connotations so I would prefer .local. |
43 |
If you need something else and mDNS doesn't work, .localdomain will |
44 |
probably remain usable for the reasons I gave. |
45 |
|
46 |
Cheers, |
47 |
R0b0t1 |