[105575] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lou Katz)
Fri Jun 27 12:21:42 2008
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:21:30 -0700
From: Lou Katz <lou@metron.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <5E590F95-C7B4-4A90-894E-55CDA5296241@multicasttech.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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.
