architecture question

btb btb at
Wed May 8 18:32:22 UTC 2013

On 2013.05.08 13.33, Jeremy P wrote:
> I understand letter of the law, spirit of the law and playing it safe to
> avoid headaches.
> However, there are times where registering a real domain just isn't
> practical.  For example, I'm not going to ask all of the students in my
> courses to go out and register a .com for the semester.  It would be a
> waste of money as their systems never leave the local network, except
> through a NAT connection.  So in those types of instances, I'm assuming
> .lan or .test are safest?

well, the thing is, in reality, there is almost *never* not an actual domain name [or subdomain] which is applicable.  surely the organization has a domain name, within which there is plenty of latitude for various subdomains, to accommodate a given need.  that's kind of the whole entire point of how dns was designed to begin with.  even if formally sanctioned subdomains "aren't available" [e.g. non-technical issues], there's nothing at all stopping you from unilaterally inventing your own pretend subdomain to use for such things [effectively just the same as you'd do by inventing your own pretend tld - but without the potential for "upstream" collision].  doing that involves little more than a modicum of effort towards avoiding collisions with other existing [or potentially existing] subdomains, but that's of course relatively trivial.  not only that, in an environment in which the goal is presumably instruction and learning, what better approach to take than actual particip
 ation in

all of that being said, i think you'll find the unspoken [and quite informal] consensus is that either the .site or .internal tld are tolerable for such use - but to reiterate my soliloquy above - why bother, when you probably don't need to?


More information about the bind-users mailing list