On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 07:28:01AM +0100, Ante Karamati? wrote: > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:15:20 -0700 > Neal McBurnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't really have a well informed opinion on the topic of zeroconf > > and/or LLMNR, despite having paid some attention to it. > > It's very simple. Both technologies claim one undefined domain. And > this discussion went in wrong direction. It's not about LLMNR vs > Zeroconf. I'm arguing that *both* of them brake lots of existing > networks. .local is undefined domain and thus it is used all around the > world on real DNS (like Bind) for small-medium sized local networks.
Again, I haven't studied the details, but I have read enough to know that, despite some claims here to the contrary, this is not true for LLMNR. ".local" appears nowhere in RFC 4795 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4795 I think it can be configured to use .local or any other domain, but it doesn't do it by default, and it does talk about the need to acquire the necessary rights in dns. I've also heard that it was considered by some to pose a security risk, perhaps for this very configurability. Neal McBurnett http://mcburnett.org/neal/ -- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
