Hi. On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 01:05:41AM +0000, mick crane wrote: > On 2018-02-21 00:33, Dan Purgert wrote: > > mick crane wrote: > > > On 2018-02-20 19:36, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: > > > ,snipped> > > > > Other than that, opinion seems divided on whether for a home LAN it > > > > makes more sense to leave domain name unset, or to provide a value > > > > (picked carefully, perhaps ending ".test" or ".invalid"). In some > > > > ways > > > > I like the idea of providing a planned/known name, if only > > > > because I'd > > > > recognise it for what it is if I saw it in error messages, logs > > > > etc in > > > > future. > > > > > > > > I almost wonder if, to avoid any potential name conflict, one > > > > would be > > > > sensible to register a domain, and then NOT have it point at > > > > one's own > > > > home LAN - because unless a dynamic DNS service is used, how could > > > > one keep that uptodate (my cable internet ISP does change my WAN > > > > ip address occasionally) - and use its name on the home system. But > > > > then again that might have unintended consequences. > > > > > > I think it used to be OK and was suggested to use ".home" for local > > > network but then a cellphone company started using it. Now I think > > > it is > > > OK to use ".local" > > > > > > ".local" is out too -- reserved for mDNS (bonjour / avahi ). > > Oh, for gawd's sake. Is there not an RFC for local domains ?
There is, see RFC 7788 and RFC 8244. ".home", while being controversial, is probably fine. And there's ".test", which is perfectly fine as far as RFC 6761 concerned. Reco
