3 ms·

I do not understand your last sentence. Internal TLDs are "free" in the sense that they are not registed with IANA.

by BrandoElFollito 6y ago

tinus_hn 6y ago
Also not a smart idea because you’re in for a world of trouble if someone decides to register that tld you’re using.
- sefrost 6y ago
  It took me longer than I'd like to admit before I realised why I couldn't access any ".dev" sites. Luckily I had to edit my hosts file for a new client and eventually realised the problem was because of a project many years ago.
- mrweasel 6y ago
  Oh god yes. I worked for a telco that had a ton of service on a domain they no longer owned. In the end that other company was just blocked from our network because we hijacked their DNS internally. I wonder how much that could potentially break with DNSSEC.
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    I'd be astonished if it doesn't already mean they have some massive unexpected security holes.
mrweasel 6y ago
Sure, but there are advantages to have them available on the internet as well. What I’m thinking is having a seperate domain, which many companies already have, for corporate services. We have a .dk for our actual service, products and email, but we also use a .net domain for things like AD, Azure integration and a ton of auxilary services. Having .company rather than .company.net is just a “nice to have” and certainly not worth the $185,000 registration fee. Had it been cheaper I could see many chooce to have their own TLD just to have a more clear border between “infrastructure” and “product”. It gives the IT department more control of the domains they wish to allocate without stealing the from the product and marketing teams. I worked for a company where we already used a series of subdomains, for backend stuff, but down the road those same subdomains became more and more relevant to free up for the public parts of our website, and it was a pain to move around.
mod50ack 6y ago
The point is that there is no point in paying that kind of money if you're only going to use it internally 99% of the time.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  I believe that was how Google originally stated they planned to use .dev, prior to it being offered publicly for registration.
- heisenbit 6y ago
  The point is the 1% case where a user trying is accessing the "internal" site while using an external DNS under the control of Mr. Blackhat pretending to offer internal services.

I do not understand your last sentence. Internal TLDs are "free" in the sense that they are not registed with IANA.

tinus_hn 6y ago

Also not a smart idea because you’re in for a world of trouble if someone decides to register that tld you’re using.

sefrost 6y ago
It took me longer than I'd like to admit before I realised why I couldn't access any ".dev" sites. Luckily I had to edit my hosts file for a new client and eventually realised the problem was because of a project many years ago.
mrweasel 6y ago
Oh god yes. I worked for a telco that had a ton of service on a domain they no longer owned. In the end that other company was just blocked from our network because we hijacked their DNS internally. I wonder how much that could potentially break with DNSSEC.
- tialaramex 6y ago
  I'd be astonished if it doesn't already mean they have some massive unexpected security holes.

mrweasel 6y ago

Sure, but there are advantages to have them available on the internet as well. What I’m thinking is having a seperate domain, which many companies already have, for corporate services. We have a .dk for our actual service, products and email, but we also use a .net domain for things like AD, Azure integration and a ton of auxilary services. Having .company rather than .company.net is just a “nice to have” and certainly not worth the $185,000 registration fee. Had it been cheaper I could see many chooce to have their own TLD just to have a more clear border between “infrastructure” and “product”. It gives the IT department more control of the domains they wish to allocate without stealing the from the product and marketing teams. I worked for a company where we already used a series of subdomains, for backend stuff, but down the road those same subdomains became more and more relevant to free up for the public parts of our website, and it was a pain to move around.

mod50ack 6y ago

The point is that there is no point in paying that kind of money if you're only going to use it internally 99% of the time.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
I believe that was how Google originally stated they planned to use .dev, prior to it being offered publicly for registration.
heisenbit 6y ago
The point is the 1% case where a user trying is accessing the "internal" site while using an external DNS under the control of Mr. Blackhat pretending to offer internal services.