Re: Canonical domain names for private LANs?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
You don't need to use any special naming scheme for your private
network. Remember that the domain naming scheme exists only to make it
easier for humans to locate computers.
For example, I have 2 private domains that I use in my networks at
home: .noah for my LAN and .vpn1 for my VPN WAN. Just configure the DNS
correctly on your LAN's DNS server and you're all set.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Philipp Lehman wrote:
> I have a small home LAN consisting of three machines, one of which
> connects the LAN to my ISP over a dial-up connection. I was wondering
> what domain name to use for the LAN. What I have in mind is something
> similar to the IP address space(s) reserved for private use (such as
> While searching the web I found a pointer to RFC 2606 which lists four
> top level domains reserved for private use and testing (.test,
> .example, .invalid, and .localhost). I seems to me that ".invalid"
> would be suitable for a dial-up machine with a dynamic IP address. Is
> this actually the canonical way?
> And the (Debian specific ;) question is: is anybody using host names
> like "<hostname>.localnet.invalid" on a Debian machine? Will this work
> with standard Debian tools such as Exim, i.e. can I use it just like
> any other (unregistered) domain name or should I expect certain apps
> to actually treat it as invalid (and bouce mail, for example)? -TIA
> Philipp Lehman <email@example.com>
> Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe firstname.lastname@example.org < /dev/null
| Web: http://web.morgul.net/~frodo/
| PGP Public Key: http://web.morgul.net/~frodo/mail.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----