Hi there,
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Phil Mayers wrote:
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
Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk writes:
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
On 15/11/12 15:39, Carsten Strotmann wrote:
Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk writes:
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/15/2012 09:40 AM, Carsten Strotmann wrote:
'.local is the 4th most queried domain name (after localhost, com
and net), but it should not exist at all in the Internet (or
queries should not reach the root server system). You see corp,
intern
On 2012.11.15 10.14, Novosielski, Ryan wrote:
Failing to operate a private TLD correctly is causing internal
data leaking to the Internet, which could be a security risk but in
all cases is a burden on the root server system.
Not that I think that I'm doing this (and as I'd said, the only
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/15/2012 11:36 AM, btb wrote:
On 2012.11.15 10.14, Novosielski, Ryan wrote:
Failing to operate a private TLD correctly is causing internal
data leaking to the Internet, which could be a security risk
but in all cases is a burden on the root
On 2012.11.15 11.39, Novosielski, Ryan wrote:
Great, thanks, sounds like I'm covered then (I have BIND running
authoritative for my zone on the firewall/NAT machine only accepting
queries from my local 1918 addresses) and DHCP providing its address
as the nameserver.
be sure that bind is also
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
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
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
