Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Grant Taylor <gtaylor@×××××××××××××××××××××.net>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] TLD for home LAN?
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2022 19:54:20
In Reply to: [gentoo-user] TLD for home LAN? by Peter Humphrey
1 On 1/15/22 3:33 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
2 > Hello list,
4 Hi.
6 > Rich F said recently, "I'd avoid using the .local TLD due to RFC 6762."
8 Ya....
10 I've read RFC 6762 in the past and I just skimmed part of it again. I
11 didn't find anything that prohibited the use of the local top level
12 domain for things other than mDNS et al.
14 The only hard requirement that I did see is that if mDNS is used, that
15 queries for <anything>.local /MUST/ be sent to mDNS.
17 N.B. that does not preclude /also/ sending queries for <anything>.local
18 to other name resolution systems like traditional unicast DNS.
20 Ergo, RFC 6762 does not preclude the use of the local top level domain
21 in traditional unicast DNS.
23 > That brings me back to a thorny problem: what should I call my local network?
25 Maybe it's just me, I'm weird like that, but I vehemently believe that
26 *I* am the authority for the names of *MY* network(s). As such,
27 whatever name /I/ choose is the name that /my/ network(s) will use.
29 I don't care that a cable internet provider wants my router to be called
30 <client-ID>.<city>.<state>.<customers>.<cable company>.<tld>.
32 What's more is that I don't fathom, much less allow, the cable company's
33 -- let's go with -- questionable naming have any influence on what my
34 internal network is called.
36 > It used to be .prhnet, but then a program I tried a few years ago
37 > insisted on a two-component name, so I changed it to .prhnet.local.
39 There are /some/ complications that may have some influence on what
40 names are chosen.
42 But I point out that your network quite likely did exactly what you
43 wanted to do up until that point.
45 Q: Did you continue to use the software that you tried? Or did you end
46 up renaming your network for something that you are no longer using? }:-)
48 > Now I've read that RFC - well, Appendix G to it - and I'm scratching
49 > my head.
51 I note the distinct absence of the quintessential SHOULD or MUST that
52 RFCs are notorious for in RFC 6762 Appendix G. So ... I don't give the
53 recommendation there in much credence.
55 What's more is that RFC 6762 Appendix G fails to take into account
56 gateways that bridge mDNS into Unicast DNS. E.g. they receive an mDNS
57 query and gateway it to the configured uDNS. Thereby (mostly
58 seamlessly) tying the mDNS and uDNS name space together.
60 I really feel like RFC 6762 is a "you might want to consider not using
61 the .local top level domain on the off hand chance that you ever have
62 something that can't / won't work with it."
64 > I suppose it's possible that someone may want to connect an Apple
65 > device to my network, so perhaps I should clear the way for that
66 > eventuality.
68 Is that possibility significant enough to influence how /you/ run /your/
69 network?
71 /me puts his hand up to block glare looking out over the horizon looking
72 for the SHOULD and MUST statements again, still not finding them.
74 I can tell you that I have first hand experience with using Apple
75 devices on a network that used the local top level domain without problems.
77 > So, what TLD should I use? Should I use .home, or just go back to
78 > .prhnet? It isn't going to be visible to the Big Bad World, so does
79 > it even matter?
81 Use whatever TLD you want to use. Be aware of any potential gotchas and
82 decide if they are worth avoiding or not.
84 The old fable of "The Miller, his son, and the donkey" comes to mind.
85 -- Make yourself happy.
89 --
90 Grant. . . .
91 unix || die


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] TLD for home LAN? Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-user] TLD for home LAN? Peter Humphrey <peter@××××××××××××.uk>