Fwd: Re: Server issues

[Neal McBurnett]

On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 07:28:01AM +0100, Ante Karamati? wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:15:20 -0700
> Neal McBurnett <neal at bcn.boulder.co.us> wrote:
> 
> > I don't really have a well informed opinion on the topic of zeroconf
> > and/or LLMNR, despite having paid some attention to it.
> 
> It's very simple. Both technologies claim one undefined domain. And
> this discussion went in wrong direction. It's not about LLMNR vs
> Zeroconf. I'm arguing that *both* of them brake lots of existing
> networks. .local is undefined domain and thus it is used all around the
> world on real DNS (like Bind) for small-medium sized local networks.

Again, I haven't studied the details, but I have read enough to know
that, despite some claims here to the contrary, this is not true for
LLMNR.  ".local" appears nowhere in RFC 4795
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4795

I think it can be configured to use .local or any other domain, but it
doesn't do it by default, and it does talk about the need to acquire
the necessary rights in dns.  I've also heard that it was considered
by some to pose a security risk, perhaps for this very
configurability.

Neal McBurnett                 http://mcburnett.org/neal/