On 01/08/2012 18:25, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > In message <[email protected]> > Brian E Carpenter writes: > >> Synthesise a pseudo-TLD from the ULA prefix. >> >> Brian > > If the whole ULA is used, then the scope is single host. If the ULA > prefix is used, then the scope is all reachable ULA which is the same > as sitelocal but with an obscure name.
Correct, but the name is unambiguous, which IMHO is a MUST property for anything that looks like an FQDN. We have to live with .local but it should be just a nasty memory like 10.0.0.0/8 fifty years from now. I would suggest instructing IANA to reserve all TLD strings that start with "local" and using something like .local-fd952a92a67d to name the homenet domain. It's only a convenience to use a ULA prefix; it's simply a unique string that the CPE needs to generate anyway, but it has no significance beyond that. The point is that if an FQDN or a URL including such a name escapes from its home, it cannot be misinterpreted at another site. By contrast, printer3.sitelocal might easily be misinterpreted elswhere. Brian > > Curtis > >> On 01/08/2012 15:17, Curtis Villamizar wrote: >>> In message <[email protected]> >>> Brian E Carpenter writes: >>> >>>> On 01/08/2012 05:48, Curtis Villamizar wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> fridge.sitelocal. is a FQDN with site local scope. >>>> >>>> And therefore intrinsically evil, just like 10.0.0.0/8 is intrinsically >>>> evil. >>>> >>>> IMHO we shouldn't be discussing how to make it work less badly; we should >>>> be discussing how to avoid it entirely. >>>> >>>> Brian >>> >>> Brian, >>> >>> Not being connected to the Internet and not having any configuration >>> at all might also be intrinsically evil, but that's the situation when >>> a consumer takes some gadget out of the box. >>> >>> What we are trying to accomplish with the sitelocal is a way to name >>> things on a local network that have no domain name assigned through a >>> registry and have not had a domain name assigned as part of some >>> subdomain of the provider. >>> >>> Even if the homenet WG was extremely thoroughthe gadget did 100% of >>> what we specify and implemented everything perfectly, we can't control >>> the user who almost never has a domain name of their own or the ISP >>> that can't be bothered delegating some subdomain of theirs to a >>> customer. The customer then has no global domain to hang names off of >>> and has no choice but to not use DNS or make use of a sitelocal domain >>> with site local scope. >>> >>> So sitelocal is inherently needed, either during a transition (until >>> the uplink comes up at least for the first time and a domain name is >>> learned) or permanently (if no domain name ever gets delegated to the >>> residential customer site). >>> >>> Curtis >>> >>> >>> ps - Yes - it is inherently evil. So is not delegating rDNS IMHO. >>> But we can't control those MSO and ILEC residential ISPs. > . > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
