mDNS/LLMNR was Re: [BBLISA] openldap recipe(s)

[Dean Anderson]

Don't use .local

mDNS/LLMNR faq: http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/DNSEXT/llmnrfaq.html
See also http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4795.txt

.local isn't approved as a domain. The .local domain was proposed by
Donald Eastlake around 1999. See
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsind-local-names This document
was never approved. M$ started using .local in windows in about 2000,
ignoring the lack of standard status.

I'm also not going to argue which was the "right" thing. But only one is
the "standard approved" thing.

		--Dean

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, John Hanks wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Daniel Hagerty <hag at linnaean.org> wrote:
> 
> >    However, I don't think I could agree with your assessment of risks
> > w.r.t. mDNS.  The namespaces are disjoint as far as I can see, and at
> > least one 800 pound gorilla officially recommends the use of .local
> > within their products, ActiveDirectory particularly leaping to mind.
> 
> It wasn't meant so much as "something bad is *going* to happen" if you
> use .local as "something bad *might* happen..."  It's trivial and
> painless to avoid conflicting with it by picking some other name,
> really registered or local/imaginary. According the the draft rfc,
> .local now has special meaning (I won't take sides on whether grabbing
> .local for mDNS was the "right" thing.)
> 
> A quick google for "mDNS Active Directory .local" will produce at
> least some anecdotal evidence that 800 pound gorillas aren't always
> right. Best to just get out of the way when two or more of them start
> fighting.
> 
> jbh
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bblisa mailing list
> bblisa at bblisa.org
> http://www.bblisa.org/mailman/listinfo/bblisa
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000