1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.GENTOO.USER

  • [gentoo-user] TLD for home LAN?

    From Peter Humphrey@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 15 11:40:02 2022
    Hello list,

    Rich F said recently, "I'd avoid using the .local TLD due to RFC 6762."

    That brings me back to a thorny problem: what should I call my local network? It used to be .prhnet, but then a program I tried a few years ago insisted on
    a two-component name, so I changed it to .prhnet.local.

    Now I've read that RFC - well, Appendix G to it - and I'm scratching my head.
    I suppose it's possible that someone may want to connect an Apple device to my network, so perhaps I should clear the way for that eventuality.

    So, what TLD should I use? Should I use .home, or just go back to .prhnet? It isn't going to be visible to the Big Bad World, so does it even matter?

    --
    Regards,
    Peter.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From William Kenworthy@21:1/5 to Peter Humphrey on Sat Jan 15 12:00:01 2022
    On 15/1/22 18:33, Peter Humphrey wrote:
    Hello list,

    Rich F said recently, "I'd avoid using the .local TLD due to RFC 6762."

    That brings me back to a thorny problem: what should I call my local network? It used to be .prhnet, but then a program I tried a few years ago insisted on a two-component name, so I changed it to .prhnet.local.

    Now I've read that RFC - well, Appendix G to it - and I'm scratching my head. I suppose it's possible that someone may want to connect an Apple device to my
    network, so perhaps I should clear the way for that eventuality.

    So, what TLD should I use? Should I use .home, or just go back to .prhnet? It isn't going to be visible to the Big Bad World, so does it even matter?

    Ive been using "localdomain" for years without any obvious problems. 
    .local is not just apple but can be used by other things too (e.g., homeassistant uses it for device discovery, creating an extensive
    ecosystem in the process.  No apple devices in sight :)

    BillK

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From tastytea@21:1/5 to peter@prh.myzen.co.uk on Sat Jan 15 12:00:01 2022
    On 2022-01-15 10:33+0000 Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

    Hello list,

    Rich F said recently, "I'd avoid using the .local TLD due to RFC
    6762."

    That brings me back to a thorny problem: what should I call my local
    network? It used to be .prhnet, but then a program I tried a few
    years ago insisted on a two-component name, so I changed it to
    .prhnet.local.

    Now I've read that RFC - well, Appendix G to it - and I'm scratching
    my head. I suppose it's possible that someone may want to connect an
    Apple device to my network, so perhaps I should clear the way for
    that eventuality.

    So, what TLD should I use? Should I use .home, or just go back to
    .prhnet? It isn't going to be visible to the Big Bad World, so does
    it even matter?


    ICANN rejected .home as a TLD¹ because of name collision issues in
    private networks, so that should be fine.

    Another solution would be to register an inexpensive domain name and use
    that. 😊

    Kind regards, tastytea

    ¹ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.home>

    --
    Get my PGP key with `gpg --locate-keys tastytea@tastytea.de` or at <https://tastytea.de/tastytea.asc>.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iHUEAREKAB0WIQQ1VSZoZMptf/RapufPw5SX8bJuBwUCYeKnxgAKCRDPw5SX8bJu BwNOAP9XekiAjaCES6d51jyqo97jp/v7LviGe/XXG/3Lbmyu1QD/aQ2KwdF8q5K1 HWzNehS72o+EanI1VThdwAXWkxjc3Yc=
    =22d9
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Matthias Hanft@21:1/5 to tastytea on Sat Jan 15 12:50:01 2022
    tastytea wrote:

    Another solution would be to register an inexpensive domain name and use that. 😊

    That's generally a good idea. After using .local for many years,
    too, I have switched to my "official" domain and added "local"
    for the internal IP addresses.

    So my server down in the basement is something like "server.example.com"
    where BIND delivers the IP address 93.some.thing.official, and a DNS
    request for "server.local.example.com" delivers 10.some.thing.internal.

    So there's no need any more to search for some TLD which won't interfere
    with anything :-)

    -Matt

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich Freeman@21:1/5 to billk@iinet.net.au on Sat Jan 15 13:00:01 2022
    On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 5:57 AM William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au> wrote:

    On 15/1/22 18:33, Peter Humphrey wrote:
    Hello list,

    Rich F said recently, "I'd avoid using the .local TLD due to RFC 6762."

    That brings me back to a thorny problem: what should I call my local network?
    It used to be .prhnet, but then a program I tried a few years ago insisted on
    a two-component name, so I changed it to .prhnet.local.

    Now I've read that RFC - well, Appendix G to it - and I'm scratching my head.
    I suppose it's possible that someone may want to connect an Apple device to my
    network, so perhaps I should clear the way for that eventuality.

    So, what TLD should I use? Should I use .home, or just go back to .prhnet? It
    isn't going to be visible to the Big Bad World, so does it even matter?

    Ive been using "localdomain" for years without any obvious problems.
    .local is not just apple but can be used by other things too (e.g., homeassistant uses it for device discovery, creating an extensive
    ecosystem in the process. No apple devices in sight :)

    Just about everything supports mDNS, including Gentoo: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Avahi

    (Most desktop-oriented distros enable it by default.)

    You might want to look into whether it solves your problems
    out-of-the-box without the need to run internal DNS. The latter still
    has certain advantages, but mDNS obviously benefits from simplicity.

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Raphael Mejias Dias@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 15 20:40:01 2022

    On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 5:57 AM William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au>
    wrote:

    On 15/1/22 18:33, Peter Humphrey wrote:
    Hello list,

    Rich F said recently, "I'd avoid using the .local TLD due to RFC 6762."

    That brings me back to a thorny problem: what should I call my local
    network?
    It used to be .prhnet, but then a program I tried a few years ago
    insisted on
    a two-component name, so I changed it to .prhnet.local.

    Now I've read that RFC - well, Appendix G to it - and I'm scratching
    my head.
    I suppose it's possible that someone may want to connect an Apple
    device to my
    network, so perhaps I should clear the way for that eventuality.

    So, what TLD should I use? Should I use .home, or just go back to
    .prhnet? It
    isn't going to be visible to the Big Bad World, so does it even matter?

    Ive been using "localdomain" for years without any obvious problems.
    .local is not just apple but can be used by other things too (e.g., homeassistant uses it for device discovery, creating an extensive
    ecosystem in the process. No apple devices in sight :)

    Just about everything supports mDNS, including Gentoo: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Avahi

    (Most desktop-oriented distros enable it by default.)

    You might want to look into whether it solves your problems
    out-of-the-box without the need to run internal DNS. The latter still
    has certain advantages, but mDNS obviously benefits from simplicity.

    --
    Rich

    This solution, change hosts file, that Avahi suggests, is the easy
    solution without DNS local server?

    I never realized about the host file
    —
    Raphael


    --
    M.S. Raphael Mejias Dias
    ​Nuclear Engineer | Reactors

    Secure e-mail: raphael.mejias.dias@protonmail.com
    PGP Key for raphaxx@gmail.com: https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x87BC5A746072F951

    <div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 5:57 AM William Kenworthy &lt;<a href=
    "mailto:billk@iinet.net.au" target="_blank">billk@iinet.net.au</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
    &gt;<br>
    &gt; On 15/1/22 18:33, Peter Humphrey wrote:<br>
    &gt; &gt; Hello list,<br>
    &gt; &gt;<br>
    &gt; &gt; Rich F said recently, &quot;I&#39;d avoid using the .local TLD due to RFC 6762.&quot;<br>
    &gt; &gt;<br>
    &gt; &gt; That brings me back to a thorny problem: what should I call my local network?<br>
    &gt; &gt; It used to be .prhnet, but then a program I tried a few years ago insisted on<br>
    &gt; &gt; a two-component name, so I changed it to .prhnet.local.
  • From Grant Taylor@21:1/5 to Peter Humphrey on Sat Jan 15 21:00:02 2022
    On 1/15/22 3:33 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
    Hello list,

    Hi.

    Rich F said recently, "I'd avoid using the .local TLD due to RFC 6762."

    Ya....

    I've read RFC 6762 in the past and I just skimmed part of it again. I
    didn't find anything that prohibited the use of the local top level
    domain for things other than mDNS et al.

    The only hard requirement that I did see is that if mDNS is used, that
    queries for <anything>.local /MUST/ be sent to mDNS.

    N.B. that does not preclude /also/ sending queries for <anything>.local
    to other name resolution systems like traditional unicast DNS.

    Ergo, RFC 6762 does not preclude the use of the local top level domain
    in traditional unicast DNS.

    That brings me back to a thorny problem: what should I call my local network?

    Maybe it's just me, I'm weird like that, but I vehemently believe that
    *I* am the authority for the names of *MY* network(s). As such,
    whatever name /I/ choose is the name that /my/ network(s) will use.

    I don't care that a cable internet provider wants my router to be called <client-ID>.<city>.<state>.<customers>.<cable company>.<tld>.

    What's more is that I don't fathom, much less allow, the cable company's
    -- let's go with -- questionable naming have any influence on what my internal network is called.

    It used to be .prhnet, but then a program I tried a few years ago
    insisted on a two-component name, so I changed it to .prhnet.local.

    There are /some/ complications that may have some influence on what
    names are chosen.

    But I point out that your network quite likely did exactly what you
    wanted to do up until that point.

    Q: Did you continue to use the software that you tried? Or did you end
    up renaming your network for something that you are no longer using? }:-)

    Now I've read that RFC - well, Appendix G to it - and I'm scratching
    my head.

    I note the distinct absence of the quintessential SHOULD or MUST that
    RFCs are notorious for in RFC 6762 Appendix G. So ... I don't give the recommendation there in much credence.

    What's more is that RFC 6762 Appendix G fails to take into account
    gateways that bridge mDNS into Unicast DNS. E.g. they receive an mDNS
    query and gateway it to the configured uDNS. Thereby (mostly
    seamlessly) tying the mDNS and uDNS name space together.

    I really feel like RFC 6762 is a "you might want to consider not using
    the .local top level domain on the off hand chance that you ever have
    something that can't / won't work with it."

    I suppose it's possible that someone may want to connect an Apple
    device to my network, so perhaps I should clear the way for that
    eventuality.

    Is that possibility significant enough to influence how /you/ run /your/ network?

    /me puts his hand up to block glare looking out over the horizon looking
    for the SHOULD and MUST statements again, still not finding them.

    I can tell you that I have first hand experience with using Apple
    devices on a network that used the local top level domain without problems.

    So, what TLD should I use? Should I use .home, or just go back to
    .prhnet? It isn't going to be visible to the Big Bad World, so does
    it even matter?

    Use whatever TLD you want to use. Be aware of any potential gotchas and
    decide if they are worth avoiding or not.

    The old fable of "The Miller, his son, and the donkey" comes to mind.
    -- Make yourself happy.



    --
    Grant. . . .
    unix || die

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich Freeman@21:1/5 to raphaxx@gmail.com on Sat Jan 15 21:10:01 2022
    On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 2:35 PM Raphael Mejias Dias <raphaxx@gmail.com> wrote: >>
    You might want to look into whether it solves your problems
    out-of-the-box without the need to run internal DNS. The latter still
    has certain advantages, but mDNS obviously benefits from simplicity.


    This solution, change hosts file, that Avahi suggests, is the easy solution without DNS local server?

    I never realized about the host file

    Are you talking about the nsswitch.conf file? If so, then yes. If
    you run the avahi daemon and configure nsswitch.conf so that the
    resolver includes it, then any host on the network that supports
    zeroconf should be accessible via hostname.local. Most stuff does
    these days. Obviously there is more you can do with full-blown
    DNS/DHCP, but if all you care about is that your printer shows up at printer.local or whatever, and so on, then you're fine. Likewise your
    gentoo box would be available to anything else on the network via its hostname.local.

    Oh, and if you want to prefer IPv4 then use mdns4_minimal and mdns4 in
    the config.

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich Freeman@21:1/5 to gtaylor@gentoo.tnetconsulting.net on Sat Jan 15 21:30:02 2022
    On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 2:54 PM Grant Taylor <gtaylor@gentoo.tnetconsulting.net> wrote:

    RFC 6762 does not preclude the use of the local top level domain
    in traditional unicast DNS.

    Of course it doesn't. You can also go ahead and use some of Amazon's
    AWS IP space to number your home network too if you want. Just don't
    be surprised when random websites break when they try to load stuff
    and the HTTP GET goes to your television instead of the webserver it
    is hosted on. If you want to name your mail server google.com that
    works fine too, assuming you're not too attached to being able to use
    the real Google.

    Your DNS will work fine if you use .local. It just means that you
    can't also use mDNS, and if at some point you change your mind about
    your decision you have to go and reconfigure everything to use a
    different DNS name which of course sort-of defeats the purpose of
    using DNS in the first place.

    Use whatever domain name you want. I'm just pointing out that this
    particular one is used for other things that are mainly useful around
    the house. If want to live like it is 1982 feel free to stick to DNS
    the way it was always meant to be... ;)

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alarig Le Lay@21:1/5 to tastytea on Sun Jan 16 02:00:01 2022
    On Sat 15 Jan 2022 11:53:58 GMT, tastytea wrote:
    On 2022-01-15 10:33+0000 Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

    Hello list,

    Rich F said recently, "I'd avoid using the .local TLD due to RFC
    6762."

    That brings me back to a thorny problem: what should I call my local network? It used to be .prhnet, but then a program I tried a few
    years ago insisted on a two-component name, so I changed it to .prhnet.local.

    Now I've read that RFC - well, Appendix G to it - and I'm scratching
    my head. I suppose it's possible that someone may want to connect an
    Apple device to my network, so perhaps I should clear the way for
    that eventuality.

    So, what TLD should I use? Should I use .home, or just go back to
    .prhnet? It isn't going to be visible to the Big Bad World, so does
    it even matter?


    ICANN rejected .home as a TLD¹ because of name collision issues in
    private networks, so that should be fine.

    Another solution would be to register an inexpensive domain name and use that. 😊

    Kind regards, tastytea

    ¹ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.home>

    home.arpa has to be used instead

    --
    Alarig

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ralph Seichter@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jan 16 10:10:01 2022
    * tastytea:

    Another solution would be to register an inexpensive domain name and
    use that. 😊

    Quite so. For example, Hetzner (no affiliation) charges 3,36 EUR per
    year for a .de Domain. An officially registered domain saves a lot of
    hassle.

    -Ralph

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Humphrey@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jan 16 11:50:01 2022
    On Saturday, 15 January 2022 19:54:13 GMT Grant Taylor wrote:
    On 1/15/22 3:33 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:

    Rich F said recently, "I'd avoid using the .local TLD due to RFC 6762."

    Ya....

    8

    Ergo, RFC 6762 does not preclude the use of the local top level domain
    in traditional unicast DNS.

    OK.

    That brings me back to a thorny problem: what should I call my local network?

    Maybe it's just me, I'm weird like that, but I vehemently believe that
    *I* am the authority for the names of *MY* network(s). As such,
    whatever name /I/ choose is the name that /my/ network(s) will use.

    And as the addresses are all unroutable outside the LAN, that could be anything.

    8

    It used to be .prhnet, but then a program I tried a few years ago
    insisted on a two-component name, so I changed it to .prhnet.local.

    There are /some/ complications that may have some influence on what
    names are chosen.

    But I point out that your network quite likely did exactly what you
    wanted to do up until that point.

    It did, yes.

    Q: Did you continue to use the software that you tried? Or did you end
    up renaming your network for something that you are no longer using? }:-)

    No and yes, in that order. Guilty as charged. :)

    8

    I really feel like RFC 6762 is a "you might want to consider not using
    the .local top level domain on the off hand chance that you ever have something that can't / won't work with it."

    I suppose it's possible that someone may want to connect an Apple
    device to my network, so perhaps I should clear the way for that eventuality.

    Is that possibility significant enough to influence how /you/ run /your/ network?

    Could be. I occasionally take my machine to my daughter's house, and she's an Apple person. This is one reason for my current musing.

    Thanks Grant. I think I've been worrying needlessly. The network will revert
    to its original name.

    --
    Regards,
    Peter.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Bracht Laumann Jespersen@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 17 15:10:01 2022
    home.arpa has to be used instead

    Just to follow up on this. According to [0] "the domain name home.arpa was reserved by the IETF in May 2018 as a special-use domain name for non-unique DNS
    services in residential networking" (see the section "Residential Networking").

    I think this is also RFC 8375 [1].

    [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.arpa
    [1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8375/

    -- Thomas

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich Freeman@21:1/5 to lperkins@openeye.net on Tue Jan 18 20:50:02 2022
    On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 12:28 PM Laurence Perkins <lperkins@openeye.net> wrote:

    The standard does not prohibit the names being resolvable via unicast DNS as well, though it does recommend that you make sure the two resolution paths return consistent results since most systems will take the first response they get.

    If a host queries DNS first, and obtains an NXDOMAIN from an
    authoritative name server, I'm not sure most would even check mDNS. I
    think I had that issue back when I was using .local before I heard of zeroconfig.

    Obviously do as you will but I see no point in not having it
    available. After all, if for whatever reason you plug in a host and
    it doesn't end up configuring the IP you expected, it would be useful
    to be able to access it via hostname.local and actually reach the host
    instead of whatever your DNS server things the host ought to be. I
    have DNS set up for just about everything on my LAN but it is still
    really handy when I get some new device and it broadcasts itself as raspbian.local or whatever. Granted, I can just check my DHCP logs
    but zeroconfig is handy. It even works on a switch without any
    DHCP/DNS server at all (there is an IP space set aside for this
    purpose which hosts will autoconfigure for and discover each other).

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich Freeman@21:1/5 to lperkins@openeye.net on Tue Jan 18 22:00:02 2022
    On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 3:12 PM Laurence Perkins <lperkins@openeye.net> wrote:



    -----Original Message-----
    From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:41 AM
    To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
    Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] TLD for home LAN?

    On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 12:28 PM Laurence Perkins <lperkins@openeye.net> wrote:

    The standard does not prohibit the names being resolvable via unicast DNS as well, though it does recommend that you make sure the two resolution paths return consistent results since most systems will take the first response they get.

    If a host queries DNS first, and obtains an NXDOMAIN from an authoritative name server, I'm not sure most would even check mDNS. I think I had that issue back when I was using .local before I heard of zeroconfig.


    Right. If you have .local names registered with your DNS, but not resolvable via mDNS...

    No, I'm talking about the opposite situation. I'm talking about you
    have foo.local resolvable via mDNS, but not DNS - then there is a
    chance you won't be able to access the host. Basically having an
    authoritative nameserver for .local may disable mDNS on your network
    for some devices.

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Grant Taylor@21:1/5 to Rich Freeman on Tue Jan 18 22:20:01 2022
    On 1/18/22 1:50 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
    No, I'm talking about the opposite situation. I'm talking about you
    have foo.local resolvable via mDNS, but not DNS - then there is a
    chance you won't be able to access the host.

    It's the same problem just opposite directions.

    The solution is to use something to unify the .local name in the mDNS
    and uDNS name spaces. This can be done via a gateway that speaks both protocols. E.g. listens for mDNS queries as well as being an
    authoritative uDNS server for the .local domain / TLD.

    It's not /simple/ but nor is it /impossible/.



    --
    Grant. . . .
    unix || die

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)