On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 7:41 PM George at Clug wrote: > > On Friday, 02-08-2024 at 00:48 David Wright wrote: > > On Thu 01 Aug 2024 at 10:32:27 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 14:30:05 +0000, fxkl4...@protonmail.com wrote: > > > > my nsswitch.conf is "hosts: files mdns4_minimal [NOTFOUND=return] dns" > > > > i don't remenber changing it in the past few decades > > > > i recently had a situation that made me question the ordering > > > > my dns server is my primary router > > > > should dns be first > > > > > > It would be *extremely* unusual to want to consult DNS before /etc/hosts. > > > I recommend leaving files first unless you have a *really* good reason > > > to switch them. > > > > > > I have no comment on mdns4_minimal because I don't really know what that > > > is. > > > > AIUI mdns4_minimal is for devices that configure themselves using > > multicast DNS on .local. If you put dns first, then the names of any > > .local devices will be leaked out of your LAN and on to the Internet's > > DNS servers. [NOTFOUND=return] is what prevent that happening IF you > > leave the order alone. > > > (BTW don't use .local for your LAN domain name.) > > Why is that? (recently I was starting to believe I should stop using the > domain names I had chosen, and start using (what I thought was) the standard > of .local)
Because .local is used for names that can be resolved by multicast DNS. See the wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.local > Is it your personal preference, or a technical necessity? to quote from wikipedia Linux distributions use the Name Service Switch configuration file /etc/nsswitch.conf[9] in which mDNS name resolution was added via the mdns4_minimal plugin to nsswitch. In this configuration, where mdns4_minimal precedes the standard dns option, which uses /etc/resolv.conf, the mDNS resolution will block subsequent DNS resolution on the local network. > What is best practice for a local LAN prefix? (I have never found conclusive > instruction). home.arpa see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8375.html > It is my belief that .local is a MS idea originating from the configuration > of their servers. Is this correct? again, quoting from the .local wikipedia article Microsoft TechNet article 708159[7] suggested .local ... but later recommended against it Regards, Lee
