Re: apparent change in hostnames on LAN without admin intervention
On Sat 14 Dec 2019 at 13:36:28 (-0000), Curt wrote:
> On 2019-12-14, David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri 13 Dec 2019 at 19:33:51 (-0500), Jape Person wrote:
> >> Hi folks. Did I miss something?
> >
> > Perhaps a couple of references:
> > https://features.icann.org/addressing-new-gtld-program-applications-corp-home-and-mail
> > which points out that any of .home, .mail and .corp are ideal for the
> > domain name of a home LAN, and RFC 6762 on Multicast DNS which
> > explains why .local is not a good choice.
>
> I'm trying to fathom why .home would remain ideal for home LAN users in
> light of RFC 8375, which replaces the previously advised '.home' with
> 'home.arpa' as the default domain name for homenets, the former being
> known to often leak out to the root name servers.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8375
As I see it, what you're looking for in choosing a domain name at home
is a name¹ that isn't already a TLD on the Internet, and is not going
to become one in the future. In addition, you don't want something
that's going to become the domain name² for some new protocol that's
around the corner.
My understanding of RFC 8375 is that .home got hit as a category ²,
but that this was seen as a mistake which this RFC corrected.
As for leaking out to the root name servers, this is the reason that
ICANN chose not to issue .home, .mail and .corp as TLDs, but instead
to refund any money taken from organisations trying to register such
domains. That intention is what makes them good candidates for being
future-proof in category ¹.
> Or does RFC 8378[5] only apply to toasters and the like (what will they
> think of next)?
I think the idea is that toasters and so on will configure themselves
on homenet, but this means that people doing their own configuration
have to steer clear rather than get in their way. AIUI that is why
mDNS resulted in pushing .local into category ², to the dismay of the
many who thought .local to be a good choice under category ¹.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: