Re: AD name public vs private battle

"Jonathan de Boyne Pollard" <J.deBoynePollard-> wrote
in message news: ocalhost...
> Also do not be tempted to use a TLD that is longer than 3 letter.
> Yes,..the SBS people push you to use local like in "domain.local",...but
> don't,...stay with 2 or 3 letters.
>
>
> Is there a good reason for this recommendation? 2 or 3 letters are good
> 4 or more is bad?
>
>
> It was with the older OS's,...mainly Macs.
>
> Nonsense. MacOS neither has nor had any such limitation. Indeed, no
> mainstream commercial operating system imposes or imposed any such
> limitation. If one had done, it would have had quite grave problems with
> arpa. and localhost., top-level domains with 4 and 9 letters,
> respectively, and the whole world would know about it, since an inability
> to handle those two TLDs would be highly visible.
>
> I just like staying with established principles [...]
>
> When they turn out to be codswallop, as here, and not in fact established
> principles at all, don't stay with them. As I said in the other message:
> Be warned. Making up one's own private-use TLDs, 3 letter or otherwise,
> is a bad idea whose results have annoyed people for years. Don't adopt
> it. The only place that one has any business making up domain names is
> under the domain name that one actually owns.
>
>
> This includes not coöpting local., which is now used by ZeroConf, and
> which is another example (like corp.) of a TLD that people in the past
> created as a private-use TLD only to later find the world having the same
> idea that it's a good name and adopting it for a different use publicly.
>
>



I don't think it really makes much of a difference, and I believe it comse
down to an administrator's comfort level with DNS deciding what TLD they
want to use, right, wrong or indifferent.

Ace

"Jonathan de Boyne Pollard" <J.deBoynePollard-> wrote
in message
news: ard.localhost...
>>
>> I just like staying with established principles [...]
>
> When they turn out to be codswallop, as here, and not in fact
> established principles at all, don't stay with them. As I said in the
> other message: Be warned. Making up one's own private-use TLDs, 3 letter
> or otherwise, is a bad idea whose results have annoyed people for years.
> Don't adopt it. The only place that one has any business making up domain
> names is under the domain name that one actually owns.
>
> This includes not coöpting local., which is now used by ZeroConf, and
> which is another example (like corp.) of a TLD that people in the past
> created as a private-use TLD only to later find the world having the same
> idea that it's a good name and adopting it for a different use publicly.
>
>> I don't think it really makes much of a difference, and I believe it
>> comes down to an administrator's comfort level with DNS deciding what TLD
>> they want >> to use, right, wrong or indifferent.
>
> No. It makes a difference, and it makes a difference to other people.
> This is most definitely not a simple matter of a harmless personal choice
> that has no effect on other people. I hyperlinked to the root content DNS
> server statistics in an earlier message. Go and have a look at all of the
> duff query traffic that people fabricating their own private-use top-level
> domains such as corp. cause to be sent to and from shared public
> resources. As I said before, this is not a trivial issue, and there have
> been murmurings from the people who maintain infrastructure and others to
> have DNS server softwares modified to restrict such TLDs. Be warned of
> what lies down the road if people continue to pour out private-use garbage
> over their borders into the public Internet by erroneously thinking that
> they can just make up and use private-use TLDs and that it's a matter
> solely of personal choice, with little effort expended to do and little
> consequence for others. Don't add to the problem. Don't ignore the
> murmurings. Do things right.
>
>


Curious, what internal TLD do you use?

Ace

"Jonathan de Boyne Pollard" <J.deBoynePollard-> wrote
in message
news: ard.localhost...

No. It makes a difference, and it makes a difference to other people. This
is most definitely not a simple matter of a harmless personal choice that
has no effect on other people. I hyperlinked to the root content DNS server
statistics in an earlier message. Go and have a look at all of the duff
query traffic that people fabricating their own private-use top-level
domains such as corp. cause to be sent to and from shared public resources.
As I said before, this is not a trivial issue, and there have been
murmurings from the people who maintain infrastructure and others to have
DNS server softwares modified to restrict such TLDs. Be warned of what lies
down the road if people continue to pour out private-use garbage over their
borders into the public Internet by erroneously thinking that they can just
make up and use private-use TLDs and that it's a matter solely of personal
choice, with little effort expended to do and little consequence for others.
Don't add to the problem. Don't ignore the murmurings. Do things right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<PWindell>
Jonathan, I completely agree with what you are saying,...inspite of the
annoying approach earlier. However people are going to want private-use
names in their AD whether you or anyone else like it or not,...it is going
to happen,...they are going to do it,...face that. I have been using "loc"
for over 10 years and so have many others. So the "powers that be" out in
Internet Land are surely smart enough at this point in the Internet's
history to not allow the names "Local" and "loc" to become official public
names. Having them do that now at this point in history would be as silly
as suddenly deciding to allow the 3 RFC Private IP Ranges to be used on the
Internet after they have already been established everywhere in private
networks.

If I were building a Domain today, now,...and was the decision maker in the
project,..I would rather use a registered Public Name and setup Split-DNS to
handle it correctly. Had you taken the time to be a little more familiar
with me before assaulting me you might have seen that we are in the same
camp most of the time.

Now, how-about you using a better news reader and posting in Plain-Text
only,...so you stop screwing up my newsreader's ability to properly quote
and reply,...so I don't have to reformat everything in order that people can
tell the difference between what you wrote and what I wrote.


--
Phillip Windell

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

"Phillip Windell" <> wrote in message
news:...

<snipped>
>
> Now, how-about you using a better news reader and posting in Plain-Text
> only,...so you stop screwing up my newsreader's ability to properly quote
> and reply,...so I don't have to reformat everything in order that people
> can tell the difference between what you wrote and what I wrote.
>

I'm having that problem too, with replying to Jonathan's posts. He's using
Thunderbird with HTML through Google Groups. Google Groups encoding somehow
alters it so many newsreaders can't reply properly with the indents. Even
third party newsreaders can't seem to handle it unless they're set to HTML.
I started researching why, but set it aside since I have other things that
are higher priority to take care of.

Also, I'm not subscribed nor have access to, the additional group Jonathan's
cross-posting to:
comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains

Ace

"Ace Fekay [MVP-DS, MCT]" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Also, I'm not subscribed nor have access to, the additional group
> Jonathan's cross-posting to:
> comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains

Same here. That's mildly annoying, but I can live with that one.

--
Phillip Windell

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

"Phillip Windell" <> wrote in message
news:...

> for over 10 years and so have many others. So the "powers that be" out in
> Internet Land are surely smart enough at this point in the Internet's
> history to not allow the names "Local" and "loc" to become official public
> names. Having them do that now at this point in history would be as
> silly as suddenly deciding to allow the 3 RFC Private IP Ranges to be used
> on the Internet after they have already been established everywhere in
> private networks.

Y'know,...that might be an idea. Why don't the proverial "they",... whoever
the "they" are,.. officially set aside maybe three TLDs for use in private
LANs just like they set aside 3 private IP Ranges. Three canidates for that
might be loc, local, and lan.

Maybe some smart person with good writting skills (I'm not one of those)
write up a properly done RFC proposal for that. Maybe it could be appended
right on the the end of the existing RFC1918 or maybe have an RFC1918B


--
Phillip Windell

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

In article <>,
Phillip Windell <> wrote:
>"Phillip Windell" <> wrote in message
>news:...
>
>> for over 10 years and so have many others. So the "powers that be" out in
>> Internet Land are surely smart enough at this point in the Internet's
>> history to not allow the names "Local" and "loc" to become official public
>> names. Having them do that now at this point in history would be as
>> silly as suddenly deciding to allow the 3 RFC Private IP Ranges to be used
>> on the Internet after they have already been established everywhere in
>> private networks.
>
>Y'know,...that might be an idea. Why don't the proverial "they",... whoever
>the "they" are,.. officially set aside maybe three TLDs for use in private
>LANs just like they set aside 3 private IP Ranges. Three canidates for that
>might be loc, local, and lan.

And they could give it a number like 2606 and name it something
along the lines of Reserved Top Level DNS Names :-)

ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2606.txt


--
-- Rod --
rodd(at)polylogics(dot)com

That was fast! I suggest,..and it was so! :-)

Well then all that needs to be done is add those three I suggested and
designate them as for "private use" the same as the 1918 IP Ranges.


--
Phillip Windell

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

"Rod Dorman" <> wrote in message
news:hjne8k$4ui$...
> In article <>,
> Phillip Windell <> wrote:
>>"Phillip Windell" <> wrote in message
>>news:...
>>
>>> for over 10 years and so have many others. So the "powers that be" out
>>> in
>>> Internet Land are surely smart enough at this point in the Internet's
>>> history to not allow the names "Local" and "loc" to become official
>>> public
>>> names. Having them do that now at this point in history would be as
>>> silly as suddenly deciding to allow the 3 RFC Private IP Ranges to be
>>> used
>>> on the Internet after they have already been established everywhere in
>>> private networks.
>>
>>Y'know,...that might be an idea. Why don't the proverial "they",...
>>whoever
>>the "they" are,.. officially set aside maybe three TLDs for use in private
>>LANs just like they set aside 3 private IP Ranges. Three canidates for
>>that
>>might be loc, local, and lan.
>
> And they could give it a number like 2606 and name it something
> along the lines of Reserved Top Level DNS Names :-)
>
> ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2606.txt
>
>
> --
> -- Rod --
> rodd(at)polylogics(dot)com

Thanks for posting that RFC link. Interesting the names they suggest are not
the ones many use or have come up with to use internally. They are more of
testing names, etc. It would be nice to reserve names such as corp, local,
int, etc.

Ace

"Jonathan de Boyne Pollard" <J.deBoynePollard-> wrote
in message
news: lard.localhost...
> Curious, what internal TLD do you use?
>
>
> On my own personal machines? I don't. Again, I follow my own
> recommendations. (-:
>
>
> These recommendations are after all borne of experience. If you want to
> see some of the aforementioned murmurings, see this and this and this.
> (That's the ICANN SSAC that they are talking about, by the way.) If you
> want to see other people who, like me, have been through the experiences,
> know about this stuff, and make the same recommendations as I do to use a
> subdomain of the name that you own, in order to be proof against
> repetitions of the problems that have already hit the world several times,
> you can start with Windows 2008 Server book author Helge Klein. Then you
> can read a Windows IT Pro article by John Savill. The "I learned this the
> hard way." comments are instructive. Those people were learning this
> lesson the hard way six years ago.
>
>


Thank you.

Ace