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

Matthew Pounsett matt at conundrum.com
Thu Sep 7 16:41:03 UTC 2017


On 7 September 2017 at 11:27, James Stevens <James.Stevens at jrcs.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>
> The point I was making was that if, in a world where rfc1918 didn't exist
> (which I'm analogising is the state we're in with DNS) and the result was
> that router / manufacturers / individuals simply picked any old v4 subnet
> of their choice, the result would be random parts of the internet
> unreachable from random locations - which I shortened to the word "chaos"
> as this is close to the effect it would have on ISP tech support.
>

The problem with the analogy is that it is a false equivalence.  As has
been previously pointed out, the v4 address space is a fixed, limited
size.  The domain name space is, by comparison, effectively unlimited.  We
were forced into the definition of locally scoped, non-unique addresses
(RFC1918) by scarcity and the obvious issue that there was not enough v4
address space to go around.

The same problem does not exist in the domain name space.  There is no
technical reason for individuals to pick random domain names in use by
others to name their hosts.


> I seem to remember a story or two many years ago when Cisco(?) put one (or
> more) of its allocated, & actively used, address blocks as an example in a
> manual and people just copied it.


That's why we have the DOC BLOCKS.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/attachments/20170907/c80ff276/attachment.html>


More information about the dns-operations mailing list