On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Michael Orlitzky <[email protected]> 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
