IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Walter H." <walter.h@mathemainzel.info> Mon, 04 September 2017 06:12 UTC

Return-Path: <walter.h@mathemainzel.info>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF1141243F6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Sep 2017 23:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mathemainzel.info
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BEvCXXvGwbEH for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Sep 2017 23:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx23lb.world4you.com (mx23lb.world4you.com [81.19.149.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F4291201F8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Sep 2017 23:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mathemainzel.info; s=dkim11; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Cc:To:From:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID; bh=/cJTyfP4yZy4BgW6HfmKYOqdzxgootqH3E4ZeIiYG9Q=; b=S+0ubNorEtZmPzCEPWERhKDNKJLZ4JrkMoiNCOvudmMMj8UPHRB8Vw3aTpl9RfAOVMEBnMB0/HcLv96ewPphwHIiJgSIQHRH+qBNqYyCf+v47pj4JZDeSl20DJ7hNAgFS3KamEFGufYHRP5M6nyi2KQl+RxBc2a2jHtaqUYbqXY=;
Received: from [90.146.55.206] (helo=home.mail) by mx23lb.world4you.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <walter.h@mathemainzel.info>) id 1dokci-0000HX-Kp; Mon, 04 Sep 2017 08:12:40 +0200
Message-ID: <59f8c88caaf82a5884aa87223d49e7e4.1504505559@squirrel.mail>
In-Reply-To: <60304450-DFA3-4982-B01D-CC33C49BDCFC@isc.org>
References: <150428805872.6417.9525310755360551475@ietfa.amsl.com> <59A9B760.2060209@mathemainzel.info> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1709012044210.2676@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <59A9BCA2.6060008@mathemainzel.info> <20170903043202.GA18082@besserwisser.org> <59AC4E42.9080600@mathemainzel.info> <60304450-DFA3-4982-B01D-CC33C49BDCFC@isc.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2017 08:12:39 +0200
From: "Walter H." <walter.h@mathemainzel.info>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (UNIX; U; Cray X-MP/48; en-US; rv:2.70) Gecko/20110929 Communicator/7.20
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-SA-Do-Not-Run: Yes
X-AV-Do-Run: Yes
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 90.146.55.206
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: walter.h@mathemainzel.info
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mx23lb.world4you.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/gItCdFwpQJ2FrpIFCZ-iwMV0BME>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNS names for local networks - not only home residental networks ...
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2017 06:12:47 -0000

On Sun, September 3, 2017 23:38, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> ]On 4 Sep 2017, at 4:47 am, Walter H. <Walter.H@mathemainzel.info>
>> wrote:
>>
>> even if I fully ACK this, but 15 years ago, nobody said, that  ".local",
>> ... would conflict one day ...
>> and also the company I work for has decided at these times to use a
>> ".local" as internal domain and AD;
>> now it is impossible to change this ...
>
> Why would anyone tell you that “.local” would conflict when you were
> supposed
> to register a name *before* using it.

NAK: because there are two points:
the 1st: uniqueness is not a requirement here
the 2nd: global knowledge of locally used names might raise a security
problem ...

> If you are doing AD correctly you should be able to register you machines
> wherever
> they connect to the Internet and that requires a public registration.

you could that also say the other way round: if the folks had done their
job correct and made a DNS-pendant to RFC1918, many enterprises wouldn't
have the problems now, which are unresolveable ...

by the way: why are you discussing about DNSSEC for names that are used
only locally?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email