71 points

If we didn’t have a bazillion TLDs these days we’d be ok and everyone can carry on using .local or .lan and be happy that they’re not real TLDs. Now when anything could be a TLD because every word you’ve ever heard is a TLD, you don’t know if its real or not.

permalink
report
reply
36 points

Reserved TLDs are documented. The issue is they prioritized all the crazy ones before they added what people at home and businesses were actually using. ICANN won’t sell .lan because it is used too much. They haven’t tried so there is no official decision, but they won’t - they did try .corp and .home and abandoned it.

.local is reserved in RFC 6762, but for multicast DNS.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

They’re documented, but it’s a big and ever expanding list.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The special use list for use by individuals and business is actually very small and hasn’t been updated in a long time, which is a big part of the problem with people inventing their own.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

People have been told for a very long time not to use fake TLDs. I don’t think it’s reasonable to accommodate people who can’t follow instructions.

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points
*

Looks like *.lair is still a great one for a local TLD.

Just rock your “Evil.subterranean.lair” people.

You could also go for “Wicked.volcano.lair”

Or even “morallywrong.commercialrealestate.lair”


Also, anyone taking bets on how many “Internal” TLDs are gonna be used for porn?

permalink
report
reply
57 points

Very few as this ruling would reserve .internal for local DNS only and forbid it at the global level. This is ICANN’s solution to people picking random .lan .local .internal for internal uses. You’ll be able to safely use .internal and it will never resolve to an address outside your network.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

.local is recommended for use with mDNS/Zeroconf

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Yes, you’re right, RFC 6762 proposes reserving .local for mDNS. I was not aware of this until you brought it up, hence the dangers of using using TLDs not specifically designated for internal use.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I say 80% of them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
39 points

A good move!

I’m surprised they didn’t codify “.lan” though since that one is so prevalent.

permalink
report
reply
9 points

Seconding the other comment, lots of orgs picked .lan and then over the last few years have moved things into the cloud and .lan has become a meaningless soup since half the shit isn’t even on local network. Now it just means “needs a vpn or ztn to talk to”

Luckily my last three orgs finally bought a second domain for private dns. It’s quickly becoming a pattern that myorg.com owns myorg.tech or whatever for private traffic. Domains are cheap as fuck compared to everything else a business spends money on, it’s really silly how many people are using hacks for this

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I think needing a VPN to access the internal network is a good practice. And if you’re going to be used a VPN anyway, I don’t see why you wouldn’t use a “fake” TLD like .lan for internal stuff, after all it’s just simple DNS rules.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

VPN is inherently not zero trust. You really should be moving to ZTN based tools

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It’s used in many cases where the machine may not be on the LAN and LAN is a technical term. “Internal” is not and to me signifies that it’s “not public” aswell as probably managed by someone, well, internally at the entity you’re with.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

Certainly better than the awkward .home.arpa.

permalink
report
reply
23 points

Huh, I’ve seen .local used for this quite a bit and only just now realised that it’s meant for something else.

I’ve also seen .corp 🤮

permalink
report
reply
21 points

And .home.

Hopefully this .Internal domain takes off and becomes generally recognized as the only correct non-routable domain we all use. Otherwise it’s just the latest addition to the list of possible TLDs and confusion continues.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

I’m just waiting for .exe

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

It’s such a shitty situation. ICANN is not going to sell .home or .corp as they found a crapton of traffic when they checked for it, but IETF never finished an RFC for them - however people easily stumble into the draft RFC that lists what they were thinking of, and assume stuff like .lan is good to go too. They’re safe by ICANN policy, but unsanctioned.

.home.arpa is safe, per RFC, but user unfriendly to normal people. There are a few others but none a corporation would realistically use. I’ve used . internal for lab testing stuff for ages, so this is extra good news for me I guess.

Really I wish they’d have just reserved the most common ones rather than getting caught in some bureaucratic black hole.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Selfhosted

!selfhosted@lemmy.world

Create post

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don’t control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we’re here to support and learn from one another. Insults won’t be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it’s not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don’t duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

Community stats

  • 3.6K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.3K

    Posts

  • 71K

    Comments