2 ms·
I thought we should be using .local because it was specified in RFC 6762. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.local https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.local
by akshatpradhan 10y ago
I thought we should be using .local because it was specified in RFC 6762.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.local https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.local
- jkrems 10y agoThe very first paragraph of that article says: > The implementation of both approaches on the same network can be problematic, however, so resolving such names via “unicast” DNS servers has fallen into disfavor as computers, printers and other devices supporting zero-configuration networking (zeroconf) have become increasingly common. Which seems to confirm what the original poster wrote - it sounds like a bad idea using it on OSX where it collides with bonjour.
- josteink 10y agoOr it was a bad idea for apple and bonjour to collide with an established RFC. Why should everyone else change their ways because apple made an error?
- noinsight 10y agoIt's not "Apple's error", .local is now an IANA reserved special-use domain name for multicast DNS, i.e. in the same category as .example and .test. http://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domain-names.xhtml http://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/spe...
- detaro 10y agoThat RFC was created because of mDNS/Bonjour, to stop others from using that name for other purposes.
- zurn 10y agoThat is the multicast dns rfc, and says .local is used for zeroconf and not manual site-local configuration: Any DNS query for a name ending with ".local." MUST be sent to the mDNS IPv4 link-local multicast address 224.0.0.251 (or its IPv6 equivalent FF02::FB)