3 ms·

There was no RFC for localhost yet?! That's pretty surprising... That this RFC have any practical meaning? People didn't actually register localhost. domain, di

• lightbyte 9y ago
  From the actual draft: > First, the lack of confidence that "localhost" actually resolves to the loopback interface encourages application developers to hard-code IP addresses like "127.0.0.1" in order to obtain certainty regarding routing. This causes problems in the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 (see problem 8 in [draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis]). >Second, HTTP user agents sometimes distinguish certain contexts as "secure"-enough to make certain features available. Given the certainty that "127.0.0.1" cannot be maliciously manipulated or monitored, [SECURE-CONTEXTS] treats it as such a context. Since "localhost" might not actually map to the loopback address, that document declines to give it the same treatment. This exclusion has (rightly) surprised some developers, and exacerbates the risks of hard-coded IP addresses by giving developers positive encouragement to use an explicit loopback address rather than a localhost name. >This document hardens [RFC6761]'s recommendations regarding "localhost" by requiring that DNS resolution work the way that users assume: "localhost" is the loopback interface on the local host. Resolver APIs will resolve "localhost." and any names falling within ".localhost." to loopback addresses, and traffic to those hosts will never traverse a remote network.