On Saturday, 15 January 2022 19:54:13 GMT Grant Taylor wrote: > On 1/15/22 3:33 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > Rich F said recently, "I'd avoid using the .local TLD due to RFC 6762." > > Ya.... --->8 > Ergo, RFC 6762 does not preclude the use of the local top level domain > in traditional unicast DNS. OK. > > That brings me back to a thorny problem: what should I call my local > > network? > > Maybe it's just me, I'm weird like that, but I vehemently believe that > *I* am the authority for the names of *MY* network(s). As such, > whatever name /I/ choose is the name that /my/ network(s) will use. And as the addresses are all unroutable outside the LAN, that could be anything. --->8 > > It used to be .prhnet, but then a program I tried a few years ago > > insisted on a two-component name, so I changed it to .prhnet.local. > > There are /some/ complications that may have some influence on what > names are chosen. > > But I point out that your network quite likely did exactly what you > wanted to do up until that point. It did, yes. > Q: Did you continue to use the software that you tried? Or did you end > up renaming your network for something that you are no longer using? }:-) No and yes, in that order. Guilty as charged. :) --->8 > I really feel like RFC 6762 is a "you might want to consider not using > the .local top level domain on the off hand chance that you ever have > something that can't / won't work with it." > > > I suppose it's possible that someone may want to connect an Apple > > device to my network, so perhaps I should clear the way for that > > eventuality. > > Is that possibility significant enough to influence how /you/ run /your/ > network? Could be. I occasionally take my machine to my daughter's house, and she's an Apple person. This is one reason for my current musing. Thanks Grant. I think I've been worrying needlessly. The network will revert to its original name. -- Regards, Peter.
