North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:13:10PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > >>Well, I guess this shoots in the foot Microsoft's name server best > >>practices of setting up your AD domain as foo.LOCAL, using the logic > >>that .LOCAL is safe because it cannot be resolved by the root name > >>servers. > >> > >>Who wants to be the first to try to register *.local? > >> > >>>They should have been following RFC 2606. > >> > >>>Regards > >>>Marshall > > > > > >Thinking about it a little more, what about the common use of > >'localhost.localdomain' for 127.0.0.1 in most versions of *nix? I can > >just imagine the chaos that registering a *.localdomain TLD will > >cause. > > > > .localhost is already reserved through RFC 2606, so this should not be > a problem. To quote : > The ".localhost" TLD has traditionally been statically defined in host > DNS implementations as having an A record pointing to the loop back IP > address and is reserved for such use. Any other use would conflict > with widely deployed code which assumes this use. > > >Methinks it is time to update RFC2606 to reflect common practices > >before > >the new ICANN policies take effect. > > > > If you can think of a list, it probably would... Having had the need to construct a few TLDs for internal use, I hope that some new RFC will address this and reserve some (e.g. .internal, .internal# (where # is any fully numeric string), .local)? I really don't care what they are called, but I do need more than one. > > Marshall > > >Jon <snip> -- -=[L]=- Helping to interpret the lives of the animals.
|