5 ms·

I tend to agree. `.internal` is too easy to misspell or misread. Not that it's that hard, but operating at scale you really want to make things as simple and

I tend to agree. `.internal` is too easy to misspell or misread. Not that it's that hard, but operating at scale you really want to make things as simple and easy as possible.

kmoser 3y ago
.lan might be easily misspelled as .Ian (or .1an), and the three letters look like a "normal" TLD. If anything, .local might be a better choice.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Except that .local in 2024 is already in use for mDNS. Moreover, there is no such thing as a "normal" TLD. These are some existing public top level domains: .company .industries .network The reason .lan (or, for that matter, .local) isn't really that great is there will be large corporations wanting an internal use domain that spans multiple sites, which is neither local nor Local Area Network. But since it's likely to see widespread use, it does make sense for it to be short and so easy to type, which .internal is not. A decent one would be .pri, since a lot of companies already use it and "private" is what we're going for here.
- kps 3y ago
  There's an obvious solution: .local for mDNS, and any (or all) of .Iocal, .locaI, or .IocaI for internal use.
nyrikki 3y ago
The simplicity comes from adding it to the search domains list, or domains that will be automatically appended to queries that aren't fully qualified. As .lan,.local,.corp etc... aren't marked as internal, the root domain servers recieve thousands of queries per second for these internal use domains. Not only does this add load to the root servers and add lag to applications, it leaks internal information while providing zero value to the user. Just as you never have to type '.localdomain' on a CentOS or Fedora box, you won't have to type it with this change unless you want to specify a fully qualified domain. Another advantage may be a simplification of internal certificates without the current risky practice of adding internal CAs to the global CA list to get around this problem. https://cabforum.org/internal-names/ https://cabforum.org/internal-names/ The CAB forum doesn't care about internal use but we have to all deal with it. It is quite possible that if this is standardized that companies could apply for intermediate CA's signed by a public cert that only apply to RFC1918 space and the .internal. TLD. Although they will probably still claim it is out-of-scope: https://github.com/cabforum/forum/blob/main/CSCWG-charter.md#2-out-of-scope https://github.com/cabforum/forum/blob/main/CSCWG-charter.md... But at least with an but with a official non-global TLD it may be possible to make a case for it.

I tend to agree. `.internal` is too easy to misspell or misread. Not that it's that hard, but operating at scale you really want to make things as simple and easy as possible.

kmoser 3y ago

.lan might be easily misspelled as .Ian (or .1an), and the three letters look like a "normal" TLD. If anything, .local might be a better choice.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Except that .local in 2024 is already in use for mDNS. Moreover, there is no such thing as a "normal" TLD. These are some existing public top level domains: .company .industries .network The reason .lan (or, for that matter, .local) isn't really that great is there will be large corporations wanting an internal use domain that spans multiple sites, which is neither local nor Local Area Network. But since it's likely to see widespread use, it does make sense for it to be short and so easy to type, which .internal is not. A decent one would be .pri, since a lot of companies already use it and "private" is what we're going for here.
kps 3y ago
There's an obvious solution: .local for mDNS, and any (or all) of .Iocal, .locaI, or .IocaI for internal use.

nyrikki 3y ago

The simplicity comes from adding it to the search domains list, or domains that will be automatically appended to queries that aren't fully qualified. As .lan,.local,.corp etc... aren't marked as internal, the root domain servers recieve thousands of queries per second for these internal use domains. Not only does this add load to the root servers and add lag to applications, it leaks internal information while providing zero value to the user. Just as you never have to type '.localdomain' on a CentOS or Fedora box, you won't have to type it with this change unless you want to specify a fully qualified domain. Another advantage may be a simplification of internal certificates without the current risky practice of adding internal CAs to the global CA list to get around this problem. https://cabforum.org/internal-names/ https://cabforum.org/internal-names/ The CAB forum doesn't care about internal use but we have to all deal with it. It is quite possible that if this is standardized that companies could apply for intermediate CA's signed by a public cert that only apply to RFC1918 space and the .internal. TLD. Although they will probably still claim it is out-of-scope: https://github.com/cabforum/forum/blob/main/CSCWG-charter.md#2-out-of-scope https://github.com/cabforum/forum/blob/main/CSCWG-charter.md... But at least with an but with a official non-global TLD it may be possible to make a case for it.