In message <1504563125.29012.4.ca...@wittsend.com>, "Michael H. Warfield" write s: > On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 20:29 +0100, Tony Finch wrote: > > > > On 3 Sep 2017, at 22:51, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote: > > > On 3 Sep 2017, at 14:38, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > Why would anyone tell you that â.localâ would conflict when you > > > > were supposed > > > > to register a name *before* using it. > > > > > > Because some vendors gave bad advice in their documentation, > > > particularly in examples. > > > > > > > If you are doing AD correctly you should be able to register you > > > > machines wherever > > > > they connect to the Internet and that requires a public > > > > registration. > > > > > > And that is what Microsoft has suggested in all their documentation > > > for many years. > > > However, Microsoft did encourage their customers to use .local names > > for Active Directory domains for quite a long time - see for example > > this link to the documentation for Windows Small Business Server > > 2003. It isn't fair to only blame MS customers for choosing .local > > domains. > > > https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc747455(v=ws.10).aspx > > I would point out an analogous situation with documentation and > addresses. The documentation that accompanied Sun Microsystems SunOS > and Solaris used examples of IP address 1.1.1.1 and 1.2.3.4 and > similar, now making those blocks toxic since that /8 was assigned to > APNIC. IIRC, they also used names like .local and .test in some of > their doco. This isn't just a Microsoft think (and I'm far FAR from a > Microsoft apologist). Sometimes our tech writers do things they > shouldn't when their crystal ball is cloud and we get stuck with the > results. And I've dealt with far FAR worse.
The keyword above was examples which they clearly were. Most of 1.0.0.0/8 is in use today despite those examples. The use of local test were also clearly examples. The Microsoft page above advocated the use literal use of .local which is very different. APNIC could allocate those addresses if they wished without much issues. I'm sure there would be lots of takers even given the known limitations. There would be a little extra traffic. They are perfect for eyeball only usage. The real issues arise if you try to use those addresses for servers. Mark > > Tony. > > -- > > f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at > > Regards, > Mike > -- > Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (o) +1 706 850-8773 | m...@wittsend.com > /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/ | (c) +1 678 463-0932 | > http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ > ARIN whois: ARIN-MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of > all > PGP Key: 0xC0EB9675674627FF | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it! -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
