Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt

Stuart Cheshire <> Tue, 25 February 2014 01:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCAF41A039B for <>; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:51:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.049
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L6sS0q-G-SS9 for <>; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:51:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 706F81A0235 for <>; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:51:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Received: from ([]) by (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 ( 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <> for; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:51:35 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 11807165-f79076d0000015d9-48-530bf7272ac3
Received: from ( []) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 90.96.05593.727FB035; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:51:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01( 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTPSA id <> for; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:51:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Stuart Cheshire <>
In-reply-to: <>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:51:43 -0800
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-id: <>
References: <20140129055438.2402.qmail@joyce.lan> <>
To: Ralf Weber <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FCsoav+nTvYYNpNC4u7by6zODB6LFny kymAMYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoErY8r2e0wFy3grjtxcytLAeI6ri5GTQ0LARGL3y3vMELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hAQmM0mcfNgG5axiklj5aw+Qw8HBLKAncf+iFkgDL5C5c+82VhBbWCBXYlrvMjYQ m01AS+LF5ytgNqeArcThi+fYQWwWAVWJ01cOM4HYzALuEo2nDzBD2NoST95dYIWYaSPxv+Ul WL2QQIrE5yUTWUBsEQE5ia2rGqAOlZU4fe45ywRGgVkIF81CctEsJFMXMDKvYhQoSs1JrDTX SywoyEnVS87P3cQIDrvC1B2MjcutDjEKcDAq8fB2FHMHC7EmlhVX5h5ilOBgVhLh/XkCKMSb klhZlVqUH19UmpNafIhRmoNFSZx32leglEB6YklqdmpqQWoRTJaJg1OqgfHQ1MvWeR5+bC7T 4gvDPj0V+J8XdePGgS4Vy8ZoDeMpaX8rLj9xviuVfatZP2qyS4fu7wM1T+YwioQtk2R3Cpm6 WP6L0O7VixdfWCpyda0Tsw3bytdl98KKl+UkS4pEfZx1Lvj4NDcVy/I3coWWx/aExkvuFb64 XfLcJsGwM7M3fnf+52Ol1KTEUpyRaKjFXFScCABotOOSNwIAAA==
Cc: " WG" <>, John Levine <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:51:38 -0000

On 29 Jan, 2014, at 07:47, Ralf Weber <> wrote:

> Where shall this stop? How about .LOKALESNETZWERK (german for .LAN). How many domains do we want to treat special? I know this draft only asks for 8, but some of them are on ICANNs application list.

Currently, with no established procedure for local-use names, the result is chaos. Since no DNS equivalent to RFC 1918 exists, people use whatever name they feel like. My hope is that if people are offered a short list of legitimate pseudo-TLDs for local-use names, the temptation to use some other TLD not on that list will be less. Today all NAT gateways I know of default to one of the RFC 1918 address ranges. If RFC 1918 did not exist, would NAT gateways not exist, or would they just hijack who-knows-what addresses? I suspect the latter.

If we acknowledge and document the reality, the IETF can have a role in guiding it in a sane direction. If we pretend local-use names don’t exist, then the IETF has less relevance in the real world and the real world carries on without us.

> I also don't think there are risks in delegation these other than the applicants will get lots of traffic.

No, the risk is that the applicants *won’t* get the traffic they want, because some user’s local DNS is answering those queries.

If we have *some* pseudo-TLDs reserved for local-use names, there’s a stronger argument that local hijacking of other names is illegitimate.

And yes, if you want .LOKALESNETZWERK, then argue for that. Let’s use this IETF discussion process to get some clarity on which names are local-use and which ones are not.

Stuart Cheshire