this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
100 points (97.2% liked)

Selfhosted

39947 readers
463 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Robert7301201@slrpnk.net 39 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Very few as this ruling would reserve .internal for local DNS only and forbid it at the global level. This is ICANN's solution to people picking random .lan .local .internal for internal uses. You'll be able to safely use .internal and it will never resolve to an address outside your network.

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

.local is recommended for use with mDNS/Zeroconf

[–] Robert7301201@slrpnk.net 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes, you're right, RFC 6762 proposes reserving .local for mDNS. I was not aware of this until you brought it up, hence the dangers of using using TLDs not specifically designated for internal use.

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, you’re right, RFC 6762 proposes reserving .local for mDNS. I was not aware of this until you brought it up, hence the dangers of using using TLDs not specifically designated for internal use.

I had actually used .local for years until I caved upon knowing, and bought kingthrillgore.name and used it both for my web sigh and my local domains. For most people, this is an unnecessary cost. We should really approve adding .lan and .localhost to ICANN as reserved domains as well.

[–] Robert7301201@slrpnk.net 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

.localhost is already reserved for the loopback, per RFC 2606, but I agree with you in general. A small network shouldn't have to have a $10-15/year fee to be compliant if they don't want to use a domain outside their network.

As other posters have mentioned, .lan .home .corp and such are so widely used that ICANN can't even sell them without causing a technical nightmare.

[–] conorab@lemmy.conorab.com 3 points 9 months ago

People who do not wish to buy a GTLD can use home.arpa as it is already reserved. If you are at the point of setting up your own DNS but cannot afford $15 a year AND cannot use home.arpa I’d be questioning purchasing decisions. Hell, you can always use sub-domains in home.arpa if you need multiple unique namespaces in a single private network.

Basically, if you’re a business in a developed country or maybe developing country, you can afford the domain and would probably spend more money on IT hours working around using non-GTLDs than $15 a year.