On 07/10/2012 09:32 AM, Brian E Carpenter 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>
I agree. Though it's a little unfriendly to type in a FQDN for a
ULA-like-statistically-unique name, right? It would be sort of nice
to finesse this.
Mike
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
