[PLUG] Naming RFC 1918 networks...

[wes]

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Someone <plug_1 at robinson-west.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 19:32 -0700, wes wrote:
> > In what way is a non-public TLD dangerous? BTW, the standard for that is
> to
> > use .local rather than .foo.
>
> For how long will .local be understood to be private?  What guarantees
> are there?  Why not .pri or .private or .lan or .res or .reserved
> or .home?  The danger is that people do try to use what are supposed to
> be reserved private TLDs whether they purchase the right to or not from
> IANA.
>
> Back to my idea, what if 10 different organizations want to have
> http://www.foo.bar as their globally unique domain name?  No, foo.bar is
> not a good generic name, but please ignore that.
>
> Just because there are a lot of possibilities for strings that are 255
> characters or so long, not all of them are desirable to name a web site.
> In fact, there are a few names that potentially a lot of people want to
> use.  I don't know of any official RFC that says that .local is a
> private TLD.  I prefer a three letter TLD for a private network where
> local just isn't three letters.
>
> Separate issue here, I've noticed with Bind 9 at least that removing
> the root hints section doesn't prevent bind from forwarding answers
> from Internet based name servers.  Seems that Bind is hard coded to
> know about remote Internet based name servers.
>
>

ok, if you want one that will be guaranteed private forever, you can use
.example.

however, for all practical and reasonable purposes, you can use .foo, .tld,
or pretty much anything you want. as long as your local resolver thinks it's
a local domain, it will not go looking for records with the same name
outside. you can just as well use an already-in-use .com domain and just
hijack it for yourself on your local network. this is not dangerous, just a
little confusing.

-wes