User wanting to use a .local domain to host DNS

btb btb at
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 mailing list