Fwd: Re: Server issues

[Scott Kitterman]

This one doesn't seem to have made it to the list.

Scott K

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: Re: Server issues
Date: Tuesday 20 November 2007 17:18
From: Neal McBurnett <neal at bcn.boulder.co.us>
To: Sebastien Estienne <sebastien.estienne at gmail.com>
Cc: Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com>, ubuntu-server at lists.ubuntu.com

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 08:28:44PM +0100, Sebastien Estienne wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2007 8:15 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:05:23 +0100 "Sebastien Estienne" 
<sebastien.estienne at gmail.com> 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
> > >"http://support.microsoft.com/kb/296250", 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?
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kato-dnsop-local-zones-00.txt 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
 draft-kato-dnsop-local-zones-00.txt
 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
standardization.

RFC 4795 was published http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4795
 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                 http://mcburnett.org/neal/

-------------------------------------------------------