←back to thread

.INTERNAL is now reserved for private-use applications

(www.icann.org)
563 points joncfoo | 2 comments | 09 Aug 24 16:36 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
csdreamer7 ◴[09 Aug 24 20:13 UTC] No.41205035[source]▶
Can we get .local or .l added for private-use applications too?
replies(5): >>41205064 #>>41205158 #>>41207055 #>>41208856 #>>41210365 #
duskwuff ◴[09 Aug 24 20:29 UTC] No.41205158[source]▶
.local is already reserved for mDNS.
replies(2): >>41205429 #>>41210351 #
jeroenhd ◴[09 Aug 24 21:10 UTC] No.41205429[source]▶
.local is in this weird state where it's _technically_ not reserved, but most PCs in the world already resolve it with special non-DNS software because of the Bonjour/mDNS protocol.

So you end up with the IETF standardising .local, because Apple was already using it, but ICANN never did much with that standardisation.

I doubt ICANN will actually touch .local, but they could. One could imagine a scheme where .local is globally registered to prevent Windows clients (who don't always support mDNS) from resolving .local domains wrong.

replies(4): >>41205459 #>>41205538 #>>41205804 #>>41207138 #
candiddevmike ◴[09 Aug 24 21:30 UTC] No.41205538[source]▶
It's reserved per RFC 6762:

> This document specifies that the DNS top-level domain ".local." is a special domain with special semantics, namely that any fully qualified name ending in ".local.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6762

Applications can/will break if you attempt to use .local outside of mDNS (such as systemd-resolved). Don't get upset when this happens.

Interesting fact: RFC 6762 predates Kubernetes (one of the biggest .local violators), they should really change the default domain...

replies(2): >>41205967 #>>41209086 #
1. wlonkly ◴[09 Aug 24 22:41 UTC] No.41205967{3}[source]▶
But that's an IETF standard, not an ICANN policy. AFAIK there's nothing in place today that would _prevent_ ICANN from granting .local to a registry other than it just being a bad idea.
replies(1): >>41206537 #
2. anderskaseorg ◴[10 Aug 24 00:40 UTC] No.41206537[source]▶
The jurisdictional status of .local and other standards-reserved special use domains is explained by RFC 6761 section 3:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6761#section-3

And ICANN is bound by the IETF/ICANN Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the IANA, which prevents it from usurping that jurisdiction:

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/agreements-en