←back to thread

563 points joncfoo | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
csdreamer7 ◴[] No.41205035[source]
Can we get .local or .l added for private-use applications too?
replies(5): >>41205064 #>>41205158 #>>41207055 #>>41208856 #>>41210365 #
duskwuff ◴[] No.41205158[source]
.local is already reserved for mDNS.
replies(2): >>41205429 #>>41210351 #
jeroenhd ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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. ◴[] No.41209086[source]