<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFCC" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/11/12 17:50, btb wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:50A3CBE2.8050109@bitrate.net" type="cite">On
2012.11.14 10.02, King, Harold Clyde (Hal) wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I'm a bit confused by a user request. I
think he is trying to keep some
<br>
hosts on the private side of DNS, but he wants to use a DNS name
like
<br>
host.sub.local. I do not know of the use of the .local TLD
except in
<br>
bonjure. Can anyone shed some light on the use of the .local
TLD?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
</blockquote>
I did this one time long ago, with the result that all MACs in the
network stopped working properly, they actually use that tld for
their own purposes. Once I switched to .home, everything started to
work again as expected.<br>
<br>
So as others said: Don't Do This! - at least if you value your
sleep.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:50A3CBE2.8050109@bitrate.net" type="cite">
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
-ben
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Please visit <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users">https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users</a> to
unsubscribe from this list
<br>
<br>
bind-users mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bind-users@lists.isc.org">bind-users@lists.isc.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users">https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Best regards
Sten Carlsen
No improvements come from shouting:
"MALE BOVINE MANURE!!!"
</pre>
</body>
</html>