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

James Stevens James.Stevens at jrcs.co.uk
Sat Sep 9 08:17:55 UTC 2017

I think a solution that

1) includes full IDN support, i.e. private domain can be ALL native 
language - in some ways more important for private domains, often used 
by small local business.

2) provide better possibility of collision avoidance

would be preferable

The risk with "internal." is that people will use only the TLD and not 
use sub-domains causing a failure at both.

On 08/09/17 22:38, Phil Pennock wrote:
> For myself: ULA exists, RFC1918 exists, the general problem space
> therefore exists, the world is_not_  flat and the more we try to make it
> absolutely flat the more human nature and abuse reminds us of why total
> visibility is not necessarily the best engineering solution to social
> problems, so ".internal" is a good path forward.

So my preferred solution would still be a reserved prefix.

I've not yet seen any response as to why a prefix that includes one or 
more UNDERSCORE wouldn't be a viable solution - e.g. "zz__" - or even 
all "[LETTER][LETTER]__" - where "XN__" could be IDN?

Or "X[LETTER]__" if you wanted to avoid any confusion with existing TLDs.

 From what I understand this is already forbidden for use on the public 
internet, but OK for private use.

This being the case, all that remains would be to provide some kind of 
guarantee it/they will NEVER be used.

1) It shouldn't tread on anybody's toes and
2) provides a dot-less solution people seem to prefer
3) supports IDN

Without (2) I think there is a danger human laziness will always trump 
any technical solution and I think "internal." also risks this - i.e. 
people will STILL just enter "lan" instead of "lan.internal"

This solution would also make catching the queries in a DNS proxy and 
not passing them onto the public internet a trivial task.


More information about the dns-operations mailing list