Re: [DNSOP] DNSSEC in local networks

"Walter H." <> Mon, 04 September 2017 09:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53E7B126B6E for <>; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 02:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o7g5oEoNY361 for <>; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 02:50:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EE821241FC for <>; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 02:50:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=dkim11; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Cc:To:From:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID; bh=Nk26VtnI0RPsIDxMyj3ruvZRz4BIUon2KFSFQnpFpKE=; b=rCJnPe6v4KeanvODu+PjysaLS+EdmWNoN3Yr6GczQ3LLmd/z4P/iyjOCrw8lY3e8gY2Uf/5kgTxSY/Q5Lwpvd+DLYJqaIRsRCtWDhkHJ2oh7WEs+BFJeZdUP+Gq38MeFgvpBUC8nI5bParAlqAwtmW2fpVlbFIITBe443amu3dU=;
Received: from [] (helo=home.mail) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1doo16-0007x3-5C; Mon, 04 Sep 2017 11:50:04 +0200
Message-ID: <c0c73dab49c6452c616c86656704ecd0.1504518603@squirrel.mail>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <59f8c88caaf82a5884aa87223d49e7e4.1504505559@squirrel.mail> <> <3fe7bc511a990b0288b645dc176e1ef3.1504515284@squirrel.mail> <>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2017 11:50:03 +0200
From: "Walter H." <>
To: Mark Andrews <>
Cc: Jim Reid <>, dnsop WG <>
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-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSSEC in local networks
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2017 09:50:08 -0000

> Except you misses the entire point of getting a registered name,
> that is to be able to use it safely without anyone trampling on its
> use.

where there anyone who said: "don't use it", 15 years ago?

> '' is in the process of being registered so that it
> can be used safely in the environment it is designed to be used in.

yes, but commonly for residental networks, not company/enterprise networks,
they want/need something shorter like ".corp", ".lan", ".local", ...

> Yes, '' will be registered.  It's a different type of
> registration to the one that is normally done by talking to your
> friendly DNS registrar but it is a registration.

exact such a name but a TLD is needed for companies/enterprises in order
to prevent new ones doing the mistakes of old ones ..., and having the
safety not having a conflict in the future ...

> Names are not addresses.  They have different properties.

that is not the point,
the point is, that in those days where these companies decided to use
.local, .corp, ... such a paper prevented these decisions and now it could
have been expanded with DNSSEC features ...

just guess what would have happened when there was no RFC1918; by the way,
I would not have any problem changing my internal IPv4 addresses from e.g.
10.x.x.x to let's say 52.x.x.x - it is only a thought;

companies that use .local as their internal domain name and/or Active
Directory have no problem as long as there is no system that insists on
using mDNS for .local as specified in RFC6762