User wanting to use a .local domain to host DNS
btb at bitrate.net
Wed Nov 14 16:50:42 UTC 2012
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 light on the use of the .local TLD?
this is a bad idea, plain and simple. don't do it. .local is reserved
[as others have mentioned] for mdns/zeroconf, and while there may still
be some undulation in the various documents which standardize it, it is
in active, relatively prevalent use today.
i repeatedly see demonstrable, reproducible problems which manifest in
"mysterious" symptoms to those who do not understand the difference
between dns and name resolution. while dns itself does not care in the
slightest what string a person might choose to use in a label [given of
course the constraints of character sets in general], the various name
resolution mechanisms used by a system's stub resolver/libraries risk
being short circuited [dependent on the specifics of the configuration]
by the mdns resolution mechanism if there is a .local reference.
while there are no formally established "private" tlds, the closest
thing to a consensus is to user either .site or .internal for this sort
of thing. that being said - i question the "necessity" of a special
"internal" domain. not only is it likely to generate confusion for
users, rarely is this truly necessary, with the trivial expense of
domain names [not to mention the probability of existing ownership
anyway] and mechanisms like split horizon/views.
More information about the bind-users