flicts to
RFC 6762 ...
Thanks,
Walter
On 01.09.2017 20:47, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Sep 1, 2017, at 2:46 PM, Walter H. wrote:
but there still doesn't exist any for company networks, they most commonly use
the domain name 'local', which I already noticed, that this conflicts to RFC
6
On 01.09.2017 21:47, Tony Finch wrote:
Walter H. wrote:
but there still doesn't exist any for company networks,
The point of the homenet name is to provide a zero-configuration namespace
for consumer devices.
ACK
Corporate environments are a somewhat different matter, since you can
e
On 01.09.2017 21:58, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017, Walter H. wrote:
but there still doesn't exist any for company networks, they most
commonly use
the domain name 'local', which I already noticed, that this conflicts
to RFC 6762 ...
If you are a company and
On 03.09.2017 06:32, Måns Nilsson wrote:
Corporate environments are a somewhat different matter, since you can
expect them to own their own domain name and have people who can set up
devices to use it.
BUT this need not necessarily be a public domain ..., just think of Active
Directory Domains .
On 03.09.2017 02:29, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017, Walter H. wrote:
If you are a company and you are using a hardcoded domain of "local",
then you have been and still are, completely broken. The only fix is to
rename yo
On Sun, September 3, 2017 23:38, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> ]On 4 Sep 2017, at 4:47 am, Walter H.
>> wrote:
>>
>> even if I fully ACK this, but 15 years ago, nobody said, that ".local",
>> ... would conflict one day ...
>> and also the company
On Mon, September 4, 2017 10:26, Jim Reid wrote:
>
>> On 4 Sep 2017, at 07:12, Walter H. wrote:
>>
>> by the way: why are you discussing about DNSSEC for names that are used
>> only locally?
>
> Why do you seem to assume there are never, ever any DNS security
> Except you misses the entire point of getting a registered name,
> that is to be able to use it safely without anyone trampling on its
> use.
where there anyone who said: "don't use it", 15 years ago?
> 'home.arpa' is in the process of being registered so that it
> can be used safely in the env
On Mon, September 4, 2017 14:22, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message ,
> "Walter H." writes:
>> where there anyone who said: "don't use it", 15 years ago?
>
> Yes. There were lots that discourage the use of .local, lan,
> .corp etc. Just bec
On 04.09.2017 17:01, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 10:54:44AM +0200,
Walter H. wrote
a message of 25 lines which said:
I'd say: "either you trust the local net or not";
..., but I think it is a
mistake.
not really, when there is a security problem,
On 04.09.2017 16:54, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
That's clearly not true. .fr, for instance (but it is not the only
one) allows registration of a domain without name servers (or with
funny name servers such as ::1).
this might be a mistake of mine, as I meant registrar, hoster which I
considere
On Mon, September 4, 2017 21:16, Tony Finch wrote:
>
>> On 4 Sep 2017, at 13:54, Walter H. wrote:
>>
>> not really, at those days only a few TLDs where possible, the many TLDs
>> came some years later ...
>
> It should have been clear after 1997-1998 from the
On Mon, September 4, 2017 22:45, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>> >> > 'home.arpa' is in the process of being registered so that it
>> >> > can be used safely in the environment it is designed to be used in.
>> >>
>> >> yes, but commonly for residental networks, not company/enterprise
>> >> networks,
>> >>
> 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.
and now in the IPv6 ages the sam
On Tue, September 5, 2017 01:02, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> A better
> alternative would have been to make the default parent domain something
> registered by MS, instead of a fake TLD.
yes and no; I still don't have "my" .home even I pre-registered it
several years ago ...
__
On Mon, September 4, 2017 21:29, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> 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 M
On Tue, September 5, 2017 06:34, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message ,
> "Walter
> H." writes:
>> On Mon, September 4, 2017 21:16, Tony Finch wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 4 Sep 2017, at 13:54, Walter H.
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >
On Tue, September 5, 2017 09:04, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 06:09:06AM +0200,
> Walter H. wrote
> a message of 20 lines which said:
>
>> I see it exact this, and it would be fair to prevent future bugs with
>> defining one or two FAKE TLDs (e.g
18 matches
Mail list logo
