Re: domain names, was: hostname
Hi.
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 01:05:41AM +0000, mick crane wrote:
> On 2018-02-21 00:33, Dan Purgert wrote:
> > mick crane wrote:
> > > On 2018-02-20 19:36, Jeremy Nicoll wrote:
> > > ,snipped>
> > > > Other than that, opinion seems divided on whether for a home LAN it
> > > > makes more sense to leave domain name unset, or to provide a value
> > > > (picked carefully, perhaps ending ".test" or ".invalid"). In some
> > > > ways
> > > > I like the idea of providing a planned/known name, if only
> > > > because I'd
> > > > recognise it for what it is if I saw it in error messages, logs
> > > > etc in
> > > > future.
> > > >
> > > > I almost wonder if, to avoid any potential name conflict, one
> > > > would be
> > > > sensible to register a domain, and then NOT have it point at
> > > > one's own
> > > > home LAN - because unless a dynamic DNS service is used, how could
> > > > one keep that uptodate (my cable internet ISP does change my WAN
> > > > ip address occasionally) - and use its name on the home system. But
> > > > then again that might have unintended consequences.
> > >
> > > I think it used to be OK and was suggested to use ".home" for local
> > > network but then a cellphone company started using it. Now I think
> > > it is
> > > OK to use ".local"
> >
> >
> > ".local" is out too -- reserved for mDNS (bonjour / avahi ).
>
> Oh, for gawd's sake. Is there not an RFC for local domains ?
There is, see RFC 7788 and RFC 8244. ".home", while being controversial,
is probably fine. And there's ".test", which is perfectly fine as far as
RFC 6761 concerned.
Reco
Reply to: