Hi Brian, The complication to what you wrote below is the current sale of internet suffixes by ICANN. It will no longer be clear that .<uniqueString> would not conflict with another suffix on the wider internet (or could in the future).
I think, in the current environment, we will be lucky to get allocation of a fixed string like <.wellknownString> for free in local home environments. We (the Homenet group) should decide on a useful, unique suffix for local services and see if we can get that reserved by ICANN for local services (and not later sold). Don On 7/10/12 9:32 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]> wrote: >On 10/07/2012 17:18, Michael Thomas wrote: >... >>> Third, maybe we do not need more than one secure .local name server >>> in a network that has more than one router. >>> >> >> Seriously, I can see my neighbor's wifi, and I have access to his >> (guest) net. This problem is already here. > >.local is a problem in exactly the same way that RFC1918 is a problem. >For homenet, we should really do better (as ULAs do better than RFC1918). > >If you want something that walks and talks like a locally defined, >locally significant TLD, then that's exactly what you'd better have. >So it needs to be .<uniqueString> not .<wellKnownString> > > Brian >_______________________________________________ >homenet mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
