Server issues

Neal McBurnett neal at
Tue Nov 20 22:18:36 UTC 2007

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 08:28:44PM +0100, Sebastien Estienne wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2007 8:15 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at> wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:05:23 +0100 "Sebastien Estienne" <sebastien.estienne at> wrote:
> > >FYI macOsX has exactly the same feature enabled by default, it's
> > >called "bonjour" and the process on OsX is mDNSResponder
> > >the .local is the default zeroconf domain, one common issue is that
> > >microsoft also recommend to use this domain
> > >"", this clashes with zeroconf
> > >.local
> > >
> > >i think it's not specific to avahi, but to zeroconf and dns in general.
> > >
> > And the Microsoft one is the one the IETF standardized.  All the more reason not to install, let alone enable, it by default.
> Where is the RFC that the IETF issued about .local ?
> And i don't see why, microsoft is more right or wrong to use .local as
> zeroconf do?
> explains
> that you should use .localhost and not .local

Quoting that document (an "internet draft" of the sort which anyone
can submit any time), we find it is not supposed to be quoted :-)

 Operational Guidelines for "local" zones in the DNS
 Expires: August 24, 2003                               February 24, 2003

 Status of this Memo
 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
 time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material
 or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.''

I haven't really caught up over the last 18 months with what has
happened in the big IETF debates about mDNS (so-called "Apple") vs
LLMNR (Link-local Multicast Name Resolution - so called "Microsoft").

But I haven't heard that there is anything on the road to

RFC 4795 was published
 Link-Local Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)

but that is just an "Informational" RFC, and just about anyone who is
persistent enough can get one of those published.

Security issues have been identified with both of them,
since they let systems mess with names that look like
official dns names.

I find a lot of appeal to finding a good standard for simplified
configuration, like zeroconf.  But I think that it is a difficult
thing to get right :-(

Neal McBurnett       

More information about the ubuntu-server mailing list