|
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
Matthew Petach (mpetach) writes: > If they simply use "smtp" as the hostname, most of the > current resolver libraries will append the local domain > name, so that instead of reaching my A record for smtp, > they'll end up trying to reach smtp.their.domain. Actually, that's a good point -- although it will try first with the domains specified in the search list first. So I wouldn't worry too much about this kind of thing. But considering the amount of flag waving and "Caution: Wet Floor" signs ICANN placed when it rolled out something has harmless as the IDN tests in the root, I'm surprised that they haven't thought about all the non-FQDNs that will suddenly resolve, including all the private TLDs that people use internally. It's bad practice, and isn't recommended anyway, but I do expect it will cause many more fun (read: annoying) calls to helpdesks of the sort "where did my mail go ?". And mail won't be the only thing. > Will operating system manufacturers release updated > resolver libraries that no longer assume that single > token names should have the local domain attached? I know a lot of mail clients that won't accept to send mail to [email protected], but they certainly will accept [email protected] as the outgoing mail name. Luckily, that will match the search list as well first. > Or should I always ensure that resolvers reach my > domain explicitly by including the trailing "dot" in > all uses, so that my email would be given out as > "[email protected]" in the hopes that everyone would > correctly remember to add the "." at the end when > entering my email address into their mail clients? A fair number will barf on this (for now). > Or does the current resolver logic already handle > these cases (check root, work your way down > stopping at the first match found; if you run out > of tokens in the string being resolved, append the > local domain name to the string and start the process > over)? The other way around. And if I ping 'dk', my resolver stops after "catpipe.net" and my other private domain. It doesn't try "dk.", even though dk. has an A record associated with it. I get NXDOMAIN. > Simply looking to solidify my understanding of how > these new names would resolve. Not too many problems, I think, except for resolver libraries that fail to find the name in the domains listed in the search list, and continue to '.'. It's not standard practice though. Phil
|