I'm a bit confused by a user request. I think he is trying to keep some hosts
on the private side of DNS, but he wants to use a DNS name like host.sub.local.
I do not know of the use of the .local TLD except in bonjure. Can anyone shed
some light on the use of the .local TLD?
--
Hal King -
King, Harold Clyde (Hal) h...@utk.edu wrote:
I'm a bit confused by a user request. I think he is trying to keep some
hosts on the private side of DNS, but he wants to use a DNS name like
host.sub.local. I do not know of the use of the .local TLD except in
bonjure. Can anyone shed some light
Hey there Hal,
It doesn't look like .local is officially reserved
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606), but .localdomain definitely is.
John
John Miller
Systems Engineer
Brandeis University
781-736-4619
johnm...@brandeis.edu
On 11/14/2012 10:02 AM, King, Harold Clyde (Hal) wrote:
I'm a bit
The .local TLD is reserved for link-local names, in the context of
multicast DNS (mDNS), however, I don't think mDNS has progressed
beyond the Internet Draft stage of the IETF Standards Track process. See
http://www.multicastdns.org for latest updates.
It would be imprudent to use .local for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/14/2012 10:09 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
King, Harold Clyde (Hal) h...@utk.edu wrote:
I'm a bit confused by a user request. I think he is trying to
keep some hosts on the private side of DNS, but he wants to use a
DNS name like host.sub.local.
On 11/14/2012 10:08 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
King, Harold Clyde (Hal) h...@utk.edu wrote:
I'm a bit confused by a user request. I think he is trying to keep some
hosts on the private side of DNS, but he wants to use a DNS name like
host.sub.local. I do not know of the use of the .local TLD except
Hello,
I started to see a flood of these errors after upgrading to the latest
BIND 9.9.2:
14-Nov-2012 17:14:15.304 general: warning: RSA_verify failed
14-Nov-2012 17:14:15.304 general: info: error:04077068:rsa
routines:RSA_verify:bad
At 07:15 14-11-2012, John Miller wrote:
It doesn't look like .local is officially reserved
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606), but .localdomain definitely is.
.localdomain is not reserved.
Regards,
-sm
___
Please visit
Thanks for the catch--guess I was writing a little too quickly this
morning. .localhost is reserved; .localdomain isn't.
John
On 11/14/2012 11:17 AM, SM wrote:
At 07:15 14-11-2012, John Miller wrote:
It doesn't look like .local is officially reserved
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606),
On 14/11/12 15:39, Kevin Darcy wrote:
I stopped reading as soon as I saw the requirement to add a NetBIOS
name, being overpowered by the stench of obsolescence. Does anyone
As per our recent thread, there's load of (recent, modern) stuff that
still uses NetBIOS. Sadly.
actually run 2000
On 14/11/12 15:02, King, Harold Clyde (Hal) wrote:
I'm a bit confused by a user request. I think he is trying to keep some
hosts on the private side of DNS, but he wants to use a DNS name like
host.sub.local. I do not know of the use of the .local TLD except in
bonjure. Can anyone shed some
On 2012.11.14 10.02, King, Harold Clyde (Hal) wrote:
I'm a bit confused by a user request. I think he is trying to keep some
hosts on the private side of DNS, but he wants to use a DNS name like
host.sub.local. I do not know of the use of the .local TLD except in
bonjure. Can anyone shed some
Just upgraded to 9.9.2 today and am seeing the following in syslog for the
first time:
Nov 14 15:08:58 local@mercury named[2920]: [ID 873579 daemon.info] adb:
grow_names to 6143 starting
Nov 14 15:08:58 local@mercury named[2920]: [ID 873579 daemon.info] adb:
grow_names finished
I gather this
On 14/11/12 17:50, btb wrote:
On 2012.11.14 10.02, King, Harold Clyde (Hal) wrote:
I'm a bit confused by a user request. I think he is trying to keep some
hosts on the private side of DNS, but he wants to use a DNS name like
host.sub.local. I do not know of the use of the .local TLD except in
14 matches
Mail list logo
