On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 19:32 -0700, wes wrote: > In what way is a non-public TLD dangerous? BTW, the standard for that is to > use .local rather than .foo.
For how long will .local be understood to be private? What guarantees are there? Why not .pri or .private or .lan or .res or .reserved or .home? The danger is that people do try to use what are supposed to be reserved private TLDs whether they purchase the right to or not from IANA. Back to my idea, what if 10 different organizations want to have http://www.foo.bar as their globally unique domain name? No, foo.bar is not a good generic name, but please ignore that. Just because there are a lot of possibilities for strings that are 255 characters or so long, not all of them are desirable to name a web site. In fact, there are a few names that potentially a lot of people want to use. I don't know of any official RFC that says that .local is a private TLD. I prefer a three letter TLD for a private network where local just isn't three letters. Separate issue here, I've noticed with Bind 9 at least that removing the root hints section doesn't prevent bind from forwarding answers from Internet based name servers. Seems that Bind is hard coded to know about remote Internet based name servers. _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
