On 07.06.2017 18:57, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 06/07/2017 09:18 AM, Walter H. wrote:
today I found this:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home/
as it seems, will .home declared as special domain for private use
similar to RFC1918 IP addresses ...
I've the solution, or
On Wed, 2017-06-07 at 20:59 +0200, Walter H. wrote:
> this is my setup - but just with a .local, which I will rename to
> a .home, but this will take a week or so,
> e.g. I've to regenerate my local CA (there this .local must be changed
> to .home, too)
> SSL certificates must be changed, ...
Th
On 07.06.2017 20:39, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 06/07/2017 11:29 AM, Mike Wright wrote:
On 06/07/2017 11:19 AM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 06/07/2017 10:17 AM, Mike Wright wrote:
I don't see any reason that you couldn't use that. My only concern is
that recursive/caching nameservers would 1) have to be
On 06/07/2017 11:29 AM, Mike Wright wrote:
On 06/07/2017 11:19 AM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 06/07/2017 10:17 AM, Mike Wright wrote:
I don't see any reason that you couldn't use that. My only concern is
that recursive/caching nameservers would 1) have to be configured not
to "phone home" to the ro
On 06/07/2017 11:19 AM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 06/07/2017 10:17 AM, Mike Wright wrote:
I don't see any reason that you couldn't use that. My only concern is
that recursive/caching nameservers would 1) have to be configured not
to "phone home" to the root-servers for .home or 2) resolvers of the
On 06/07/2017 10:17 AM, Mike Wright wrote:
I don't see any reason that you couldn't use that. My only concern is
that recursive/caching nameservers would 1) have to be configured not to
"phone home" to the root-servers for .home or 2) resolvers of the future
would have to be smart enough to no
Allegedly, on or about 07 June 2017, Walter H. sent:
> your idea is good, but I'm not sure, if this TLD becomes public in
> near future, and then I've a problem again ...
Well, the only foolproof solution for you is going to be:
Register a domain name, so that you own it.
You only have to regis
Allegedly, on or about 07 June 2017, Mike Wright sent:
> I don't see any reason that you couldn't use that. My only concern is
> that recursive/caching nameservers would 1) have to be configured not
> to "phone home" to the root-servers for .home or 2) resolvers of the
> future would have to be sm
On 06/07/2017 09:20 AM, Walter H. wrote:
On 06.06.2017 22:01, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 06/06/2017 12:41 PM, Walter H. wrote:
I replied to this mail with:
if I interpret your reply correctly, I could also use just .waldi or
.waldinet?
and their reply was:
If it's only for internal network, you ca
On 06/07/2017 09:18 AM, Walter H. wrote:
On 06.06.2017 21:47, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 06/06/2017 12:41 PM, Walter H. wrote:
On 06.06.2017 20:11, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 06/06/2017 04:56 AM, Walter H. wrote:
So .lan. can't be used.
> It can be used, just be aware that maybe someday in the future
On 06/07/2017 09:18 AM, Walter H. wrote:
today I found this:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home/
as it seems, will .home declared as special domain for private use
similar to RFC1918 IP addresses ...
I've the solution, or does anybody see a bug?
That looks lik
On 06.06.2017 22:01, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 06/06/2017 12:41 PM, Walter H. wrote:
I replied to this mail with:
if I interpret your reply correctly, I could also use just .waldi or
.waldinet?
and their reply was:
If it's only for internal network, you can use .waldi or .waldinet.
If you really
On 06.06.2017 21:47, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 06/06/2017 12:41 PM, Walter H. wrote:
On 06.06.2017 20:11, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 06/06/2017 04:56 AM, Walter H. wrote:
So .lan. can't be used.
> It can be used, just be aware that maybe someday in the future it
will have a different meaning.
you're
On 06/06/2017 01:47 PM, Bob Marcan wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 12:47:49 -0700
Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 06/06/2017 12:41 PM, Walter H. wrote:
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
T
On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 12:47:49 -0700
Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 06/06/2017 12:41 PM, Walter H. wrote:
> [...]
> [...]
> [...]
> [...]
> [...]
>
> [...]
> [...]
> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe
On 06/06/2017 12:41 PM, Walter H. wrote:
I replied to this mail with:
if I interpret your reply correctly, I could also use just .waldi or
.waldinet?
and their reply was:
If it's only for internal network, you can use .waldi or .waldinet.
If you really want to make sure it's unique, why do
On 06/06/2017 12:41 PM, Walter H. wrote:
On 06.06.2017 20:11, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 06/06/2017 04:56 AM, Walter H. wrote:
So .lan. can't be used.
> It can be used, just be aware that maybe someday in the future it
will have a different meaning.
you're kidding;
as it seems there is no define
On 06.06.2017 20:11, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 06/06/2017 04:56 AM, Walter H. wrote:
the replied with the following:
Regarding your private network, if it will not be published on Internet,
you can use whatever you want. You may avoid to uses existing TLD's and
reserved ones (such as .test, .exampl
On 06/06/2017 04:56 AM, Walter H. wrote:
the replied with the following:
Regarding your private network, if it will not be published on Internet,
you can use whatever you want. You may avoid to uses existing TLD's and
reserved ones (such as .test, .example, .lan etc.) just in case. You can
use f
l have lots of warning.
I sent an email globalsupp...@icann.org with the following question
"is there any TLD, I can use for private DNS¹?
Thanks,
Walter
¹ this is only inside my private LAN with RFC1918-IPv4 Adresses;"
the replied with the following:
Regarding your private network
20 matches
Mail list logo
