[gentoo-user] Choice of TLD for internal network

[gentoo-user] Choice of TLD for internal network

[Peter Humphrey]

Hello list,

I've been running Linux systems since 1994, calling my private LAN mynet 
(bowdlerised). Now I come to install neth server on one machine, it insists 
that I tell it a domain name with at least two dots in it. But I don't have 
a standard TLD.

What do you all call your local LANs? Following Google hints, it looks as 
though I may have to change all .mynet references to .mynet.internal. Is 
this really necessary, and is it a good idea?

I can't possibly be the first to stumble over this one, surely.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.
Linux Counter 5290

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

[R0b0t1]

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I've been running Linux systems since 1994, calling my private LAN mynet
> (bowdlerised). Now I come to install neth server on one machine, it insists
> that I tell it a domain name with at least two dots in it. But I don't have
> a standard TLD.
>
> What do you all call your local LANs? Following Google hints, it looks as
> though I may have to change all .mynet references to .mynet.internal. Is
> this really necessary, and is it a good idea?
>
> I can't possibly be the first to stumble over this one, surely.
>

What is the exact message? Search the codebase for it, and if it is
some hardcoded check I would submit a bug report.

I would call them "name" similar to you. I know of no special reason
to call them anything else.

Cheers,
     R0b0t1

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

[Adam Carter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 431 bytes --]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk>
wrote:

> Hello list,
>
> I've been running Linux systems since 1994, calling my private LAN mynet
> (bowdlerised). Now I come to install neth server on one machine, it insists
> that I tell it a domain name with at least two dots in it.


That's dumb, and may be an omen on what the rest of it is like.

You can add dotted hostnames to your mynet zone file.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 795 bytes --]

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

[Peter Humphrey]

On Monday, 18 December 2017 09:49:41 GMT Adam Carter wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk>
> 
> wrote:
> > Hello list,
> > 
> > I've been running Linux systems since 1994, calling my private LAN mynet
> > (bowdlerised). Now I come to install neth server on one machine, it
> > insists that I tell it a domain name with at least two dots in it.
> 
> That's dumb, and may be an omen on what the rest of it is like.

Yes, I've been forming a similar impression while wrestling with the 
installation. I found I couldn't even touch the partitioning setup without 
causing it to fail - and so I couldn't see what it was going to do; I just 
had to give it the whole disk to play with, with no others present like USB. 
The progress bar stayed static throughout each installation phase, switching 
back and forth at the end of each phase. Then, the initial config has to be 
done in a browser on another box, after signing in to the web page as root. 
The docs don't say that.

I'd been encouraged to try Neth by a score of 9/10 in a certain magazine 
known to one of our contributors here.

> You can add dotted hostnames to your mynet zone file.

That's a good idea, but it doesn't matter any more: I've evicted Neth and 
reverted to good ol' Gentoo. Coincidentally, I'd recently also ended my 
subscription to the magazine.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

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

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 934 bytes --]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 10:45:30 +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> I'd been encouraged to try Neth by a score of 9/10 in a certain
> magazine known to one of our contributors here.

I reviewed it for one of those magazines a couple of years ago in a 5 way
round up where it narrowly beat ClearOS for top spot. I don't recall any
of those issues, but I do have a dotted domain name.

> > You can add dotted hostnames to your mynet zone file.  
> 
> That's a good idea, but it doesn't matter any more: I've evicted Neth
> and reverted to good ol' Gentoo.

Server distros are like any other binary distro, they provide a quick way
to get such a system up and running. If you are used to the control Gentoo
provides, you will soon find any of them frustrating.

> Coincidentally, I'd recently also ended my subscription to the magazine.

 :-(


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"I need your clothes, your boots, and your tagline!"

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

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

[Peter Humphrey]

On Monday, 18 December 2017 10:57:31 GMT Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 10:45:30 +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > 
> > Coincidentally, I'd recently also ended my subscription to the magazine.
> > 
>  :-(

Well, after many years of devoted service, they seem to have lost their way. 
I've no interest in Pi, for example (perhaps that ever-growing section 
should be hived off into a separate publication); the indispensable Answers 
section has disappeared; the inestimable Dr Brown's Administeria section 
ditto. American "English" pervades it relentlessly, with no attempt at 
translation. And I can't remember the last time I made use of the bundled 
DVD. It's all just too much for a body to continue spending money on.

No offence meant to anyone around here.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

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

[R0b0t1]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:45 AM, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Monday, 18 December 2017 09:49:41 GMT Adam Carter wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk>
>>
>> wrote:
>> > Hello list,
>> >
>> > I've been running Linux systems since 1994, calling my private LAN mynet
>> > (bowdlerised). Now I come to install neth server on one machine, it
>> > insists that I tell it a domain name with at least two dots in it.
>>
>> That's dumb, and may be an omen on what the rest of it is like.
>
> Yes, I've been forming a similar impression while wrestling with the
> installation. I found I couldn't even touch the partitioning setup without
> causing it to fail - and so I couldn't see what it was going to do; I just
> had to give it the whole disk to play with, with no others present like USB.
> The progress bar stayed static throughout each installation phase, switching
> back and forth at the end of each phase. Then, the initial config has to be
> done in a browser on another box, after signing in to the web page as root.
> The docs don't say that.
>

That is unfortunate. I've been having a bear of a time with Ubuntu and
its mail packages, and hoped I could try something less offensive.

> I'd been encouraged to try Neth by a score of 9/10 in a certain magazine
> known to one of our contributors here.
>

Are there any others? I find I keep experiencing issues with the
existing configuration, but I still keep looking.

Cheers,
     R0b0t1

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

[Peter Humphrey]

On Monday, 18 December 2017 09:49:41 GMT Adam Carter wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > I've been running Linux systems since 1994, calling my private LAN mynet
> > (bowdlerised). Now I come to install neth server on one machine, it
> > insists that I tell it a domain name with at least two dots in it.
> 
> That's dumb, and may be an omen on what the rest of it is like.

Maybe not. See the debate at
https://community.nethserver.org/t/i-fell-at-the-first-hurdle/8563/4

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

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

[Adam Carter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 890 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk>
wrote:

> On Monday, 18 December 2017 09:49:41 GMT Adam Carter wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > I've been running Linux systems since 1994, calling my private LAN
> mynet
> > > (bowdlerised). Now I come to install neth server on one machine, it
> > > insists that I tell it a domain name with at least two dots in it.
> >
> > That's dumb, and may be an omen on what the rest of it is like.
>
> Maybe not. See the debate at
> https://community.nethserver.org/t/i-fell-at-the-first-hurdle/8563/4
>
>
I can't see any concrete info on why your original config was a problem,
but a charitable read could amount to "given the interdependencies of the
various components, the requirement for two dots in the FQDN was deemed the
best compromise *for neth*".

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1612 bytes --]

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

[Ian Zimmerman]

On 2017-12-19 00:10, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> Maybe not. See the debate at
> https://community.nethserver.org/t/i-fell-at-the-first-hurdle/8563/4

"You can't simply edit configuration files."

I stopped reading there. {8-P

-- 
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet,
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup.
To reply privately _only_ on Usenet, fetch the TXT record for the domain.

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

[R0b0t1]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Ian Zimmerman <itz@very.loosely.org> wrote:
> On 2017-12-19 00:10, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>
>> Maybe not. See the debate at
>> https://community.nethserver.org/t/i-fell-at-the-first-hurdle/8563/4
>
> "You can't simply edit configuration files."
>
> I stopped reading there. {8-P
>

This is the point where I'd give up. If it doesn't work and can't be
fixed by editing the configuration directly, the only other option is
developing for neth. That's back to square 1, if you switched to neth
to save time.

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

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 12/17/2017 09:05 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> Hello list,
> 
> I've been running Linux systems since 1994, calling my private LAN mynet 
> (bowdlerised). Now I come to install neth server on one machine, it insists 
> that I tell it a domain name with at least two dots in it. But I don't have 
> a standard TLD.
> 
> What do you all call your local LANs? Following Google hints, it looks as 
> though I may have to change all .mynet references to .mynet.internal.

You should probably buy a TLD. It's stupid, but there are no reserved
top-level domain names for internal use. There used to be four[0],

  * test
  * example
  * invalid
  * localhost

There was no proscribed behavior for those TLDs, so you were free to use
them for your internal network. Then along came rfc6761[1], which tells
people how to treat those four names. In particular,

  * anything.localhost is out, because users may assume that all
    addresses resolve back to the loopback interface (e.g. 127.0.0.1)

  * anything.invalid is out, because users may assume that the domain
    does not exist.

  * anything.example is out, because it's reserved for documentation.

And that leaves you with "test." Using "test" isn't perfect, because
caching resolvers may not support it: "Caching DNS servers SHOULD offer
a configuration option..." But more importantly, having "test" on the
end of all your production hostnames is stupid.

So that really leaves you with... nothing. Don't use ".internal" or any
other name that isn't reserved or that you don't own[2].

For now, your best option is to buy a domain.


[0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6761
[2]
https://isc.sans.edu/forums/diary/Stop+Using+internal+Top+Level+Domain+Names/21095/

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

[Peter Humphrey]

On Monday, 18 December 2017 13:56:52 GMT Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 12/17/2017 09:05 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > Hello list,
> > 
> > I've been running Linux systems since 1994, calling my private LAN mynet
> > (bowdlerised). Now I come to install neth server on one machine, it
> > insists that I tell it a domain name with at least two dots in it. But
> > I don't have a standard TLD.
> > 
> > What do you all call your local LANs? Following Google hints, it looks
> > as
> > though I may have to change all .mynet references to .mynet.internal.
> 
> You should probably buy a TLD. It's stupid, but there are no reserved
> top-level domain names for internal use.

What, for $185,000 plus quarterly fees[1]? No thanks.

--->8

> So that really leaves you with... nothing. Don't use ".internal" or any
> other name that isn't reserved or that you don't own[2].
> 
> For now, your best option is to buy a domain.

Come to think of it, I have a .me.uk domain registered. I wonder if I can 
use that...

1.	https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/24460/how-can-i-buy-my-own-personalized-top-level-domain-tld

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

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

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 12/18/2017 09:31 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>
>> You should probably buy a TLD. It's stupid, but there are no reserved
>> top-level domain names for internal use.
> 
> What, for $185,000 plus quarterly fees[1]? No thanks.
> 
> --->8
> 

I meant "buy a domain" there =)

If somebody were to shell out 200k for a TLD for internal use, I would
try to talk him into letting me use it.

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

[David Haller]

Hello,

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>Come to think of it, I have a .me.uk domain registered. I wonder if I can 
>use that...

Of course you can. Just add a third/fourth level subdomain and put
your stuff under this. E.g. I have a domain example.de registered to
me, resolving from-da-induhned. With hosts such as
{www,mail}.example.de and example.de redirected to www.

Now then, internally, I chose hostnames. And then use those, not
resolvable via DNS, via /etc/hosts and dnsmasq. From my /etc/hosts:

127.0.0.1   ${hostname}.example.de      ${hostname} localhost
127.0.0.1   news.${hostname}.example.de news
127.0.0.2   docs.${hostname}.example.de docs    docs.example.de
127.0.0.3   www.${hostname}.example.de  www
127.0.0.1   irc.${hostname}.example.de  irc
127.0.0.1   ftp.${hostname}.example.de  ftp

So, just replace example.de by ${yourprefix}.me.uk and have fun, and
use ${hostname}.${yourprefix}.me.uk, www.${hostname}.${yourprefix}.me.uk.

HTH,
-dnh

-- 
"Ford had his own code of ethics. It wasn't much of one, but it was
his and he stuck by it, more or less. One rule he made was never to
buy his own drinks. He wasn't sure if that counted as an ethic, but
you have to go with what you've got. "

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

[Wol's lists]

On 18/12/17 13:56, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 12/17/2017 09:05 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>> Hello list,
>>
>> I've been running Linux systems since 1994, calling my private LAN mynet
>> (bowdlerised). Now I come to install neth server on one machine, it insists
>> that I tell it a domain name with at least two dots in it. But I don't have
>> a standard TLD.
>>
>> What do you all call your local LANs? Following Google hints, it looks as
>> though I may have to change all .mynet references to .mynet.internal.
> 
> You should probably buy a TLD. It's stupid, but there are no reserved
> top-level domain names for internal use. There used to be four[0],
> 
>    * test
>    * example
>    * invalid
>    * localhost
> 
> There was no proscribed behavior for those TLDs, so you were free to use
> them for your internal network. Then along came rfc6761[1], which tells
> people how to treat those four names. In particular,
> 
My router defaults, iirc, to .local. And I thought .home also did the 
same sort of thing.

See RFCs 7788 for .home, and 8244 for .local

It seems to me that 7788 defines .home, although it appears it did not 
do it properly.

I think .local was correctly added to 6761, so that domain CAN be used 
as your private network's TLD.

Cheers,
Wol

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

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 12/18/2017 02:55 PM, Wol's lists wrote:
>
> My router defaults, iirc, to .local. And I thought .home also did the 
> same sort of thing.

Both are reserved: the ".home" TLD is reserved for the Home Networking
Control Protocol in the RFC 7788 that you cited, and ".local" is
reserved for some multicast DNS mumbo jumbo in RFC 6762.

(There is no good choice, and out of the bad ones, ".local" is OK I guess.)


> See RFCs 7788 for .home, and 8244 for .local

I didn't know about RFC 8244 (it's from October), but it looks like it
only points out the existing problems. I'll go read it.


> I think .local was correctly added to 6761, so that domain CAN be used 
> as your private network's TLD.

local doesn't appear in RFC 6761, you might be thinking of localhost?
For ".localhost", the RFC more or less states that your users can assume
that all addresses resolve to 127.0.0.1, which makes it unsuitable for a
network with more than one machine.

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

[David Haller]

Hello,

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>On 12/18/2017 02:55 PM, Wol's lists wrote:
>> My router defaults, iirc, to .local. And I thought .home also did the 
>> same sort of thing.
>
>Both are reserved: the ".home" TLD is reserved for the Home Networking
>Control Protocol in the RFC 7788 that you cited, and ".local" is
>reserved for some multicast DNS mumbo jumbo in RFC 6762.
>
>(There is no good choice, and out of the bad ones, ".local" is OK I guess.)
>
>> See RFCs 7788 for .home, and 8244 for .local
>
>I didn't know about RFC 8244 (it's from October), but it looks like it
>only points out the existing problems. I'll go read it.
>
>> I think .local was correctly added to 6761, so that domain CAN be used 
>> as your private network's TLD.
>
>local doesn't appear in RFC 6761, you might be thinking of localhost?
>For ".localhost", the RFC more or less states that your users can assume
>that all addresses resolve to 127.0.0.1, which makes it unsuitable for a
>network with more than one machine.

ISTR, .localdomain is the new .local...

BTW: I hate it how .local got ursurped by zeroconf/mDNS.

-dnh

-- 
[the role of government] is not taking over the health care system, that has
existed for a long long time and has produced the best health records in the
world ...         -- Mitt Romney, 2012, first presidential candidate debate,
                         who clearly never has seen "Sicko" by Michael Moore

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

[Bill Kenworthy]

On 19/12/17 04:25, David Haller wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> On 12/18/2017 02:55 PM, Wol's lists wrote:
>>> My router defaults, iirc, to .local. And I thought .home also did the 
>>> same sort of thing.
>>
>> Both are reserved: the ".home" TLD is reserved for the Home Networking
>> Control Protocol in the RFC 7788 that you cited, and ".local" is
>> reserved for some multicast DNS mumbo jumbo in RFC 6762.
>>
>> (There is no good choice, and out of the bad ones, ".local" is OK I guess.)
>>
>>> See RFCs 7788 for .home, and 8244 for .local
>>
>> I didn't know about RFC 8244 (it's from October), but it looks like it
>> only points out the existing problems. I'll go read it.
>>
>>> I think .local was correctly added to 6761, so that domain CAN be used 
>>> as your private network's TLD.
>>
>> local doesn't appear in RFC 6761, you might be thinking of localhost?
>> For ".localhost", the RFC more or less states that your users can assume
>> that all addresses resolve to 127.0.0.1, which makes it unsuitable for a
>> network with more than one machine.
> 
> ISTR, .localdomain is the new .local...
> 
> BTW: I hate it how .local got ursurped by zeroconf/mDNS.
> 
> -dnh
> 

I have used .localdomain for years without issue.  VLANS
(wifi.localdomain, lan.localdomain etc.) are great if you have the
hardware to do it.

Using non-official TLD internally shouldn't cause any problems (unless
someone is "stupid").

BillK

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

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 12/18/2017 04:58 PM, Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> 
> I have used .localdomain for years without issue.  VLANS
> (wifi.localdomain, lan.localdomain etc.) are great if you have the
> hardware to do it.
> 
> Using non-official TLD internally shouldn't cause any problems (unless
> someone is "stupid").

When someone registers ".localdomain", you're going to start sending
them your private, internal traffic.

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

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 796 bytes --]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 08:59:10 -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:

> > I have used .localdomain for years without issue.  VLANS
> > (wifi.localdomain, lan.localdomain etc.) are great if you have the
> > hardware to do it.
> > 
> > Using non-official TLD internally shouldn't cause any problems (unless
> > someone is "stupid").  
> 
> When someone registers ".localdomain", you're going to start
> sending them your private, internal traffic.

If you're using .localdomain, you either have it in your host file or a
local DNS service, so you should never get the public DNS address
for .localdomain... unless you don't use hosts and try it when connecting
your laptop via another network.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

WinErr 003: Dynamic linking error - Your mistake is now in every file

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

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

[Michael Orlitzky]

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.

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

[Wols Lists]

On 19/12/17 13:57, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> 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.

Which was why I liked Demon as my ISP. They had a customer domain and
assigned you a name on it. Whether you used it as a host or domain name
was up to you.

Most ISPs now assume you are a client and don't give you proper internet :-(

Cheers,
Wol

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

[Peter Humphrey]

On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 16:39:50 GMT Wols Lists wrote:
> On 19/12/17 13:57, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Which was why I liked Demon as my ISP. They had a customer domain and
> assigned you a name on it. Whether you used it as a host or domain name
> was up to you.
> 
> Most ISPs now assume you are a client and don't give you proper internet
> :-(

Zen is fine too. I had to choose a subdomain (prh) in myzen.co.uk, then I 
could define 11 users@prh.myzen.co.uk. I've only used a few of those, as any 
user names local to my LAN aren't supposed to be visible outside it.

Any time I look round for a new ISP to change to for any reason, I'm only 
ever interested in those that act as a pair of bare wires connecting me and 
mine to the outside world - no interference,* no proxies, transparent or 
otherwise. Just a simple connection.

I forget why I left Demon years ago. I wouldn't touch BT Internet with a 
barge-pole since they got all cosy with Yahoo, and UKFSN went more-or-less 
defunct. Whence Zen today.

* [OT]	What's the difference between intervention and interference? None 
that I can see. One is just more Politically Crass - oops! Correct - than 
the other.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

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

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 675 bytes --]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:00:33 +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> * [OT]	What's the difference between intervention and
> interference? None that I can see. One is just more Politically Crass -
> oops! Correct - than the other.

It's not about political correctness but perspective. The good guys
intervene, the baddies interfere. It's like the difference between a
terrorist and a freedom fighter.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

K: (n., adj.) a binary thousand, which isn't a decimal thousand or even
really a binary thousand (which is eight), but is the binary number
closest to a decimal thousand. This has proven so completely confusing
that is has become a standard.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

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

[Peter Humphrey]

On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 20:31:42 GMT Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:00:33 +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > * [OT]	What's the difference between intervention and
> > interference? None that I can see. One is just more Politically Crass -
> > oops! Correct - than the other.
> 
> It's not about political correctness but perspective. The good guys
> intervene, the baddies interfere. It's like the difference between a
> terrorist and a freedom fighter.

We could mince words all day. I just wish all those busybodies would stop 
"doing good", go away and find something useful to do. And not at us 
taxpayers' expense.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

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

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 405 bytes --]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 00:33:08 +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> > It's not about political correctness but perspective. The good guys
> > intervene, the baddies interfere. It's like the difference between a
> > terrorist and a freedom fighter.  
> 
> We could mince words all day.

No we couldn't, that would make us politicians...


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Beware of cover disks bearing upgrades.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

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

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday, 20 December 2017 01:09:30 GMT Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 00:33:08 +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > It's not about political correctness but perspective. The good guys
> > > intervene, the baddies interfere. It's like the difference between a
> > > terrorist and a freedom fighter.
> > 
> > We could mince words all day.
> 
> No we couldn't, that would make us politicians...

Have I touched a raw nerve?  :)

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

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

[Wols Lists]

On 20/12/17 02:12, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 December 2017 01:09:30 GMT Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 00:33:08 +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>>> It's not about political correctness but perspective. The good guys
>>>> intervene, the baddies interfere. It's like the difference between a
>>>> terrorist and a freedom fighter.
>>>
>>> We could mince words all day.
>>
>> No we couldn't, that would make us politicians...
> 
> Have I touched a raw nerve?  :)
> 
Sounds like it :-) Unfortunately, life is politics (with a small "p").

As for people "doing good", I prefer to call busy-bodies "do gooders".
They go out looking for people to "help", and are usually very
"Politically Correct".

On the other hand, people "doing good" are those who see a problem, ASK
THE PEOPLE AFFECTED WHAT THEY WANT, and muck in and help.

As opposed to Politicians, who see a problem, come up with some solution
that doesn't work, and then expect everyone else except them to
implement it!

Cheers,
Wol

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

[Adam Carter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 699 bytes --]

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:00:33 +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>
> > * [OT]        What's the difference between intervention and
> > interference? None that I can see. One is just more Politically Crass -
> > oops! Correct - than the other.
>
> It's not about political correctness but perspective. The good guys
> intervene, the baddies interfere. It's like the difference between a
> terrorist and a freedom fighter.
>

Stuart Lee's comedy bit on political correctness is worthwhile;

"They're saying i cant have an electric fire in the bath anymore Stu, in
case queers see it"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99s19HBs-6A

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1249 bytes --]

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

[R0b0t1]

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org> 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

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

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 12/19/2017 12:22 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
> 
> There are; .local and .localhost are reserved TLDs.


.local is reserved for Apple's multicast DNS stuff, which requires names
to be resolved via a nonstandard method:

  Any DNS query for a name ending with ".local." MUST be sent to the
  mDNS IPv4 link-local multicast address 224.0.0.251 (or its IPv6
  equivalent FF02::FB).

Therefore anything that supports RFC 6762 will break if you name your
domain ".local". Likewise, .localhost is reserved by RFC 6761 which says

  Users may assume that IPv4 and IPv6 address queries for localhost
  names will always resolve to the respective IP loopback address.

  ...

  Caching DNS servers SHOULD recognize localhost names as special
  and SHOULD NOT attempt to look up NS records for them, or
  otherwise query authoritative DNS servers in an attempt to
  resolve localhost names.

In other words, anything that supports RFC 6761 will break if you name
your domain ".localhost".

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

[R0b0t1]

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 12/19/2017 12:22 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
>>
>> There are; .local and .localhost are reserved TLDs.
>
>
> .local is reserved for Apple's multicast DNS stuff, which requires names
> to be resolved via a nonstandard method:
>
>   Any DNS query for a name ending with ".local." MUST be sent to the
>   mDNS IPv4 link-local multicast address 224.0.0.251 (or its IPv6
>   equivalent FF02::FB).
>
> Therefore anything that supports RFC 6762 will break if you name your
> domain ".local". Likewise, .localhost is reserved by RFC 6761 which says
>

The "MUST" is contingent on whether or not you want to follow RFC
6762. .local is reserved regardless.

>   Users may assume that IPv4 and IPv6 address queries for localhost
>   names will always resolve to the respective IP loopback address.
>
>   ...
>
>   Caching DNS servers SHOULD recognize localhost names as special
>   and SHOULD NOT attempt to look up NS records for them, or
>   otherwise query authoritative DNS servers in an attempt to
>   resolve localhost names.
>
> In other words, anything that supports RFC 6761 will break if you name
> your domain ".localhost".
>

Most of these RFCs are talking about internet infrastructure that is
not run by people of lowly and unimportant stature as myself. So I
interpret "authoritative" to mean "external to my intranet." This
contradicts the sentence above it. Such inconsistency can only be
expected of Russians, so I view the standards body as compromized and
morally bankrupt.

As it is .localhost has strange connotations so I would prefer .local.
If you need something else and mDNS doesn't work, .localdomain will
probably remain usable for the reasons I gave.

Cheers,
     R0b0t1

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

[Ian Zimmerman]

On 2017-12-18 08:56, Michael Orlitzky wrote:

> You should probably buy a TLD.

(Understood that you mean "buy a domain".)

I'd like to remind everyone (again?) of FreeDNS (aka afraid.org).  You
can get a 3rd level name free, and then subdivide that as you like.
They won't _delegate_ to you (unless you pay), so it's still just a
private namespace invisible from the outside, but you avoid the risk of
clashing with someone else's registered domain.

-- 
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet,
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup.
To reply privately _only_ on Usenet, fetch the TXT record for the domain.