RE: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com> Wed, 07 September 2005 23:56 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ED9m7-0002X7-MO; Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:56:19 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ED9m5-0002UL-4z for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:56:17 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01612 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 19:56:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail-out3.apple.com ([17.254.13.22]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ED9pL-0000Gf-ST for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:59:40 -0400
Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (a17-128-100-204.apple.com [17.128.100.204]) by mail-out3.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j87Nu77V013410 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay3.apple.com (relay3.apple.com [17.128.113.33]) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.17) with ESMTP id <T733decc773118064cc554@mailgate2.apple.com> for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:56:06 -0700
Received: from [17.202.44.119] (chesh7.apple.com [17.202.44.119]) by relay3.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j87Nu6wS006235 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200509072356.j87Nu6wS006235@relay3.apple.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:56:05 -0700
x-sender: cheshire@mail.apple.com
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69
Subject: RE: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Christian Huitema wrote:

>if an application tries to resolve
>"host.local" through, say, gethostbyname, then the query will
>indeed be forwarded to the local DNS service. The responsibility
>for the ".local" traffic lies mostly into whoever is promoting use
>of this top level domain and coding that use in applications.

That would be Microsoft:

<http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q296250&GSSNB=1>

>The Domain Name System name recommendations for
>Small Business Server 2000 and Windows Small Business Server 2003

>July 16, 2004

>Make the name a private domain name that is used for name resolution
>on the internal Small Business Server network. This name is usually
>configured with the first-level domain of .local. At the present
>time, the .local domain name is not registered on the Internet.

>The natural separation of internal and external networks
>occurs because of the use of a separate internal namespace.
>A client query generated from the Internet for www.contoso.local
>does not return any valid domain information because .local, at
>the present time, is not a registered domain name.

>Name resolution problems that are created by using a publicly
>registered domain name can be avoided by planning the private
>namespace around a .local first-level domain so that, in this example,
>Contoso.com and Contoso.local are both available to internal clients,
>but Contoso.com is only available to external internet clients.

A suspicious person might think that the reason Microsoft is trying
to encourage its customers to use ".local" is a deliberate attempt
to foster interoperability problems with machines running mDNS.
I do not think that. I'm sure there must be a perfectly reasonable
non-Machiavelian explanation for why Microsoft is advocating use of
the ".local" DNS domain. I just don't know what it is right now.

Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer, Inc.
 * www.stuartcheshire.org


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf