Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > > > I.e. the proposed use case is already widely deployed and known to be a > > bad idea. > > known by whom, and how? (got URL?)
Gosh well I thought this was widely agreed folklore / common sense since the 1990s and I'm not in the habit of collecting links to essays on "why X is a bad idea" when it seems from my perspective that approximately nobody writes essays like that because X is obviously a bad idea... :-) But, we know that overlapping name spaces and address spaces are a nightmare for mergers and acquisitions. It's incompatible with private interconnects, such as organizations collaborating without mergeing, or home-to-home VPNs. We know that non-unique namespaces are incompatible with the web security model. We know that it's incompatible with PKIX. (You can do private x.509 but not public.) We know it's incompatible with DNSSEC. (You can set up a private root, but then we're back to splendid isolation and arcane technical expertise.) Overall it scuppers much of the protocols that support end-to-end connectivity and security. And the breakage is unnecessary because we know there are straightforward alternatives that avoid the problems. [ I am maybe exaggerating a bit about the 1990s, because back then, when Microsoft Small Business Server was encouraging everyone and their dog to squat on .local, domain names were 10x more expensive than now and 100x more difficult to obtain, so they had a reasonable excuse, but it was still terrible. ] Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ Channel Islands: South to southeast 2 to 4, becoming variable 1 to 3 by early afternoon, then northwest 1 to 3 by midnight. Smooth or slight. Scattered thundery showers, mainly near French coasts, risk of mist or fog patches, mainly in the north of the area. Moderate or good, occasionally poor, perhaps locally very poor. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
