On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 2:54 AM Nick Tait via bind-users wrote: > > On 13/01/2025 12:44, Lee wrote: > > As long as I'm asking ignorant questions.. is there some reason why > > bind (at least as it came configured on my Debian machine) looks up > > .local names? > > > > I added this bit to named.conf to do what seemed reasonable. But > > again - it seems reasonable _to me_ I dunno if anyone else agrees & it > > seems like either way is RFC compliant. > > <.. snip config bit ..> > > What is the problem you're trying to solve?
I suppose the problem is my ignorance. What, if anything, is going to break if I use db.null for resolving .local names? What problems can it cause? If it's not going to cause a problem, why isn't bind configured that way "out of the box"? I suspect it's not going to be a problem, which is why I went ahead and did it I don't remember how long ago. But since I was asking about .localhost name resolution I thought I may as well ask about .local also. > E.g. If your goal is to have > ".local." domain names resolved using mDNS instead of DNS, then this is > the wrong solution? Names are being resolved using mDNS - I'm not sure I could stop that even if I wanted to. And it seems like resolving .local names in bind is, at best, no better than what mDNS gives me "for free" so why bother? > You'd be better off starting with how name > resolution is configured on the clients. I don't have a whole lot of options there. The clients are a mixture of Windows and Apple products.. about all I can do (or at least all I know how to do) is use DHCP to give them a domain name and point them to a resolver. Thanks Lee -- Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
