Re: [gentoo-user] Choice of TLD for internal network

[R0b0t1]

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote:
> On 12/18/2017 03:25 PM, David Haller wrote:
>>
>> ISTR, .localdomain is the new .local...
>>
>> BTW: I hate it how .local got ursurped by zeroconf/mDNS.
>>
>
> You were never allowed to use .local in the first place =P
>
> I learned some interesting things from RFC 8244, the first being that
> they have an up-to-date list of reserved names:
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domain-names.xhtml
>
> and the second being that there are two exceptions, because oops, they
> didn't follow their own rules (.home and ipv4only.arpa). localdomain
> isn't on there.
>
> There are no safe, free names to use for an internal network. On the one
> hand, RFC 8244 makes a decent argument that this is a good thing,
> because it guarantees that every hostname is globally unique (so if I
> copy/paste a URL to you, it goes the same place on your machine as it
> did mine). On the other hand, I hate the idea of paying some bureaucrat
> to be able to use my own network.
>

There are; .local and .localhost are reserved TLDs. Further, any name
without a TLD is unlikely to resolve without a major reworking of the
DNS system. Likewise it seems unlikely anyone will ever be able to
register ".localdomain" similar to how ".com" is not registered.

http://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domain-names.xhtml

I don't understand all of this discussion. There exist vacant TLDs -
.local was first and was fine, so why did anybody change? Why does
neth need a name with two dots? None of this makes any sense. Do
people keep making stuff up without reading first?

Cheers,
     R0b0t1