On 26 Oct 2023 10:33 +0200, from m...@dorfdsl.de (Marco M.): >> Certainly "local." would have been one possibility, but that is >> reserved _specifically_ for mDNS (RFC 6762) although is often >> incorrectly used for non-mDNS names. > > rfc6762
>From section 3 of that RFC: > This document specifies that the DNS top-level domain ".local." is a > special domain with special semantics, namely that any fully > qualified name ending in ".local." is link-local, and names within > this domain are meaningful only on the link where they originate. [...] > > Any DNS query for a name ending with ".local." MUST be sent to the > mDNS IPv4 link-local multicast address 224.0.0.251 (or its IPv6 > equivalent FF02::FB). "Link local" is not the same thing as "site local". "Site local" seems a reasonable approximation of the scope of home.arpa names; it's certainly not implausible for a home network to have both wired and wireless parts, hosts on which would belong to different link local scopes. (Yes, it is possible to run a VPN or other type of tunnel between two geographically disparate sites both of which use home.arpa names in a coordinated fashion with non-routable IP addresses, such that hosts in one location are accessible from the other under their *.home.arpa names. But that only requires coordination between the sites involved, not global coordination.) -- Michael Kjörling 🔗 https://michael.kjorling.se “Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”
