On 2012.11.14 10.02, King, Harold Clyde (Hal) wrote:
I'm a bit confused by a user request. I think he is trying to keep some hosts on the private side of DNS, but he wants to use a DNS name like host.sub.local. I do not know of the use of the .local TLD except in bonjure. Can anyone shed some light on the use of the .local TLD?
this is a bad idea, plain and simple. don't do it. .local is reserved [as others have mentioned] for mdns/zeroconf, and while there may still be some undulation in the various documents which standardize it, it is in active, relatively prevalent use today.
i repeatedly see demonstrable, reproducible problems which manifest in "mysterious" symptoms to those who do not understand the difference between dns and name resolution. while dns itself does not care in the slightest what string a person might choose to use in a label [given of course the constraints of character sets in general], the various name resolution mechanisms used by a system's stub resolver/libraries risk being short circuited [dependent on the specifics of the configuration] by the mdns resolution mechanism if there is a .local reference.
while there are no formally established "private" tlds, the closest thing to a consensus is to user either .site or .internal for this sort of thing. that being said - i question the "necessity" of a special "internal" domain. not only is it likely to generate confusion for users, rarely is this truly necessary, with the trivial expense of domain names [not to mention the probability of existing ownership anyway] and mechanisms like split horizon/views.
-ben _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
