From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-181498-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE8F0139083
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:22:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 97B5BE0FB3;
Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:22:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-yb0-x22e.google.com (mail-yb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::22e])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C19CE0F58
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:22:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yb0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id 69so14171703ybc.6
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:22:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=8PYFpjLDX3ZHIEAQSix16zptY35MJtwAaKFVi3MZEoo=;
b=ozsJ3vtn2f1WpSu2ETIrMX5YkuYi+DAeBlKjzO4OQlAHytaREyaZEFM/NT8CUezMp6
6r2+BJovNgvo5WNOIlL3eSqxwwHqmCpUNBZC6F/atSAOmUhCOVFNXoMp2uCf3Gij962A
ZGptmsmQ657ujV3tD96vV5Qmk4CN/tkPG0avR5bJFwv/ZPhwL1O3j2ML3ADxQct+DNfL
CVGFBF/mZRv+dJPCUQ8mJVBmKyoYdSGfRNWDURYWtr0feUn3mLWl54i+uh+1J+QcHtDZ
uvvhc/Z/nNKKbqd84Kn0COt1PeXwHc+qoktCvfV+nK4DmovCsUjKSnSQMNRAOm9KUAOG
Qk4Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to;
bh=8PYFpjLDX3ZHIEAQSix16zptY35MJtwAaKFVi3MZEoo=;
b=M0Jp+jZZ8Fo5zYtiapVnb/Iv9lg4DlVEpWd6AUUwQZMJSOgKCHHW/ZYP9ldg4ekNX3
GZV48fe9JSVObhTrl40WsQQT74d0W0BLKPvif6VGyHlbrn75OoCtoLXvoty+ZyWfh+aI
eKMJLlWayeplOTSTi8h9J9u7BLTuzOol+vKvUY07Dp3vdFa08pZ/C+PF+2SW0yAcNObR
gAJdzjcb0yZX4NOMNMlYXpIFXs/7rfjrNLqDiPOZiYTRLzbBwL20PZ5aOKUQcHzBOm3M
FZpSMioWf9W/+7c9Vs9rG+DC6DJiNzotjkrmIJEbW86kXSN+prHKzhQNF99Oer4FWa1e
bIUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLGGSO4Fnvi252Zo8VYMYCTYCJ9Q5Q4/DEDUmAX2oSHYAno1kTl
5lhmeFSs7gUbI9ne1oZF8yxrXwdPCArTHiPj2phkJQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouz609HQxF+m24l7Zl1maaCF/4meME7lplVB8/fxLVqjkh0FUDoabSDi9mzrk7Um35hIDLIBHaaKyW4nAKEe/g=
X-Received: by 10.37.94.137 with SMTP id s131mr3050463ybb.346.1513704132711;
Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:22:12 -0800 (PST)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.13.224.71 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:22:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <aa149ceb-4bfd-5be5-7b7b-132e12e06545@gentoo.org>
References: <2410697.Nf28CZmUYN@peak> <9acb40cb-86cf-d5dc-e429-6f0f5fb06d36@gentoo.org>
<5a96091d-ee40-ec9c-10c2-4a1417fddfe2@youngman.org.uk> <df74a9dc-4be3-1a06-9787-972ede6a5084@gentoo.org>
<20171218202554.ih57o2si72q3jyxn@grusum.endjinn.de> <aa149ceb-4bfd-5be5-7b7b-132e12e06545@gentoo.org>
From: R0b0t1 <r030t1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:22:12 -0600
Message-ID: <CAAD4mYg7cSq6DiBd03VNcsK=TaQNHW1TH2WC-Qk-jZF4SYcTyw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Choice of TLD for internal network
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Archives-Salt: b00f5273-81ce-4041-8db2-5afa2d799b76
X-Archives-Hash: 78a10be79a78c423accc3b890a0f73c9
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