4 ms·

I just setup a brand new LAN for a client and used ".corp" for the internal DNS TLD. https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-chapin-rfc2606bis-00.html https://tools.ie

I just setup a brand new LAN for a client and used ".corp" for the internal DNS TLD. https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-chapin-rfc2606bis-00.html https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-chapin-rfc2606bis-00.html >Recommendation (2) of SAC 045 calls for the community to develop principles for "prohibiting the delegation of additional strings to those already identified in RFC2606 [RFC2606]." As the first step in that process, based on the data reported by SAC 045, this document adds to the list of names that may not be used for top-level domains the following labels: >.local, .localdomain, .domain, .lan, .home, .host, .corp Now it seems like those TLD may be sold in the future? 1&1 is even "pre-registering" those TLDs.

tialaramex 8y ago
Presumably this client insisted upon this silly idea over your objections? Because if this was _your_ idea then if I were the client I'd feel like I hired somebody who was totally incompetent when I find out this arbitrary name they picked for me is a dumpster fire. You're quoting an _expired_ _draft_ document as if that's some sort of standard.
JdeBP 8y ago
You should not have done that. * http://jdebp.eu./FGA/dns-use-domain-names-that-you-own.html http://jdebp.eu./FGA/dns-use-domain-names-that-you-own.html
- grayhatter 8y ago
  Wow, I think I need a shower to wash off the arrogance that came from just reading that page. I'd agree in premise, but officially, not even ICANN owns them; they only manage them. You shouldn't use them because of plenty of reasons. But you're totally allowed to, sysadmins everywhere will just hate you.
forapurpose 8y ago
Note that the document the parent cites is a draft standard that was due to expire in December 2011. Also, it recommends reserving .local, which subsequently was assigned to Multicast DNS.[0] I'm not a DNS expert, but I don't know if I'd count on it. [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6762 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6762

tialaramex 8y ago

Presumably this client insisted upon this silly idea over your objections? Because if this was _your_ idea then if I were the client I'd feel like I hired somebody who was totally incompetent when I find out this arbitrary name they picked for me is a dumpster fire. You're quoting an _expired_ _draft_ document as if that's some sort of standard.

JdeBP 8y ago

You should not have done that. * http://jdebp.eu./FGA/dns-use-domain-names-that-you-own.html http://jdebp.eu./FGA/dns-use-domain-names-that-you-own.html

grayhatter 8y ago
Wow, I think I need a shower to wash off the arrogance that came from just reading that page. I'd agree in premise, but officially, not even ICANN owns them; they only manage them. You shouldn't use them because of plenty of reasons. But you're totally allowed to, sysadmins everywhere will just hate you.

forapurpose 8y ago

Note that the document the parent cites is a draft standard that was due to expire in December 2011. Also, it recommends reserving .local, which subsequently was assigned to Multicast DNS.[0] I'm not a DNS expert, but I don't know if I'd count on it. [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6762 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6762