[dns-operations] TLD(s) for private use

James Stevens James.Stevens at jrcs.co.uk
Wed Sep 6 15:37:41 UTC 2017

On 06/09/17 16:22, Warren Kumari wrote:
> ... and just for completeness,  it is this document:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00

Brilliant - thanks.

> Basically, it would be asking for .internal to be reserved for RFC1918
> type usage, with the full understanding that if will have the same
> types of issues that RFC1918 has -- as pointed out below, it wouldn't
> be unique (duh) and so if multiple organizations using it were to
> merge you'll get collisions, etc.

Personally, for these sorts of reasons, I (personally) prefer a reserved 
prefix concept (e.g. "zz--").

> Note that this might be a horrendous idea, but people have been asking
> for something like this for years, and simply squatting on strings
> (.home, .corp, .mail, .network, .server, etc) because they don't have
> a safe place to do $whatever.

It seems to me, whatever the outcome, this /is/ an issue that everybody 
would benefit from being resolved.

Its not just a solution looking for a problem, or messing about for its 
own sake - there is an issue out there.

As Leo pointed out ...

On 06/09/17 12:36, Leo Vandewoestijne wrote:
 > I think Windows creates localhost.localdomain

But in reality "localdomain" is no better than any other string, even though

1) Microsoft could have easily purchased a domain for this purpose, as 
this is the solution most people have offered as the "preferred" answer.

2) This discussion suggests there is nothing in writing that implies 
"localdomain" is any more or less likely to be registered as a TLD in 
the future - although you'd think it not an obvious crowd pleaser.


More information about the dns-operations mailing list