nanog mailing list archives
Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme () multicasttech com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:48:50 -0400
Dear Lou; On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:21 PM, Lou Katz wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:13:10PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:Well, I guess this shoots in the foot Microsoft's name server bestpractices of setting up your AD domain as foo.LOCAL, using the logicthat .LOCAL is safe because it cannot be resolved by the root name servers. Who wants to be the first to try to register *.local?They should have been following RFC 2606.Regards MarshallThinking about it a little more, what about the common use of'localhost.localdomain' for 127.0.0.1 in most versions of *nix? I canjust imagine the chaos that registering a *.localdomain TLD will cause..localhost is already reserved through RFC 2606, so this should not bea problem. To quote :The ".localhost" TLD has traditionally been statically defined in host DNS implementations as having an A record pointing to the loop back IPaddress and is reserved for such use. Any other use would conflict with widely deployed code which assumes this use.Methinks it is time to update RFC2606 to reflect common practices before the new ICANN policies take effect.If you can think of a list, it probably would...Having had the need to construct a few TLDs for internal use, I hope that some new RFC will address this and reserve some (e.g. .internal, .internal# (where # is any fully numeric string), .local)? I really don't care what they are called,but I do need more than one.
There are 4 already, .test .example .invalid .localhost . I suspect that .local should also be reserved, which would make 5.It seems that .internal# should just be blocked, not reserved. Before, the feeling was that the best blockage was a reservation, but as I read the ICANN presentation, if .internal was reserved, .internal# could be blocked too without an explicit reservation.
Regards Marshall
MarshallJon<snip> -- -=[L]=- Helping to interpret the lives of the animals.
Current thread:
- Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs, (continued)
- Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs Joe Abley (Jun 27)
- Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs Tony Finch (Jun 27)
- Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs Jay R. Ashworth (Jun 27)
- Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs Marshall Eubanks (Jun 26)
- RE: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs Tomas L. Byrnes (Jun 26)
- Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs Jon Kibler (Jun 27)
- Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs Marshall Eubanks (Jun 27)
- Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs Jon Kibler (Jun 27)
- Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs Marshall Eubanks (Jun 27)
- Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs Lou Katz (Jun 27)
- Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs Marshall Eubanks (Jun 27)
- Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs Simon Waters (Jun 27)
- Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs Tony Finch (Jun 27)
- RE: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs Tomas L. Byrnes (Jun 27)
- Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs Phil Regnauld (Jun 28)
- Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs Jay R. Ashworth (Jun 27)
- Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs Zaid Ali (Jun 26)
- Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs David Conrad (Jun 26)
- Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs Jeroen Massar (Jun 26)
- Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs R. Irving (Jun 26)