Re: [DNSOP] DNS names for local networks - not only home residental networks ...

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

> On Sep 2, 2017, at 8:29 PM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Paul Wouters <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2017, Walter H. wrote:
>> 
>>>> If you are a company and you are using a hardcoded domain of "local",
>>>> then you have been and still are, completely broken. The only fix is to
>>>> rename your network.
>>> 
>>> ACK and which non public domain name I can use for this
>>>  that doesn't conflict now and will not conflict in the future?
>> 
>> 
>> Something that's yours and not squatted. For example
>> internal.mathemainzel.info.
>> 
>> Please see the last three years of dnsops and homenet working group list
>> archives.
>> 
> 
> ... perhaps the other way of looking at the last thirty three years of
> DNS is that people *do* actually want something like this, and that
> perhaps it is time to actually create something specifically for it.
> Our smacking people on the nose with rolled up newspapers and saying
> "no, bad operator" ignores the fact that people still want this, and
> still do this, and there ain't nothing we can do to stop them...
> 
> And so: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00
> 
> This asks for a Special Use Name, specifically for this sort of thing
> (and, yes, for building test networks, and for labeling devices which
> have no Internet connection, etc). The desire and need for something
> like this has been identified / discussed for a long time - the most
> recent was probably when we decided that .alt would only be for
> non-DNS contexts, and that someone should go make something like this
> for the DNS - think of it like RFC1918 for names.
> It will require an unsecured delegation, for which we currently have
> no process, and this (if people think it is a good idea!) will require
> process to be created -- which A: will take many many years, and B: if
> at least somewhat unlikely to happen -- but, if we don't at least ask,
> we certainly won't get it...

Warren - I've only read part of your draft, and I'll comment on that part of it...

I was immediately struck by the parallel between <something-internal> and home.arpa.  How are the two cases different?  Can you explain why this text from section 3.2 of your doc applies to internal.arpa and not to homenet.arpa?  

   It may also cause issues when server operators
   override part of the .arpa domain in order to instantiate
   something.arpa.

- Ralph


> 
> And yes, this is somewhat of a straw-man.
> W
> 
> 
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> idea in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> of pants.
>   ---maf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop