This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
".localhost or .test could be used as an alternative to .local." -- that sounds a bit vague. Somebody might create a TLD with that names sometime, right? What alternatives to .local would officially be sanctioned? Multi io (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed this advice from the article, since WP is not a place to give technical advice, only document. But vague it was not really, the suggested domains are officially reserved, which is stated in those articles, I believe. There are no officially sanctioned names for local networking, it's up to you to maintain your network and assure reachability of public domains for your users without conflict. Kbrose (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
As you said there are no official TLDs for local networks (the way RFC1918 IP address ranges are used for local private networks). The ICANN has badly dropped the ball on this. There's clearly plenty of demand for a local net TLD. There have been proposals/requests for TLDs to be reserved for such use, but we just keep getting technically useless "Yet Another DotCom TLDs". Anon_person 04:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk)
Hell yes, I know several people who used .local as the modern variation of .uucp. Then some shithead from Apple who didn't have an ounce of imagination came along and now half the devices get themselves messed up because of it. This time around I want one that's officially sanctioned but there isn't one. The closest I can get is to use a user assignedcountry code126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, perhaps local should have been reserved initially, like localhost and test, but how is anyone going to get consensus today which domain name is appropriate to be reserved. At the time there was good reason to reserve the existing ones, when no one could foresee the success of the Internet. Frankly, this is a non-issue, in private you are free to create any domain name you want, and the zillions of networks that do so don't seem to have a problem finding a fitting name. In addition, anyone can register an official domain cheaply in any of the existing TLDs. Where is the problem here? Comparing this to the reserved IP addresses is an invalid comparison, it is a completely different issue. Private IP addresses are an integral part of the addressing infrastructure, much unlike domain names. Kbrose (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Domain names and IP addresses are exactly the same at the most primitive view. They are both organised systems for labelling machines, the endpoints of an IP connection. IP addresses are very much physical addresses; domain names are human addresses. There could easily be one system for both sorts of addresses but separating the two levels has lots advantages.
The reason that local private IP addresses were specifically assigned wasn't because they are useful, all the reasons you give against a local private domain addresses also applied to IP addresses. The reason that RFC1597 was written was pragmatic. People were already assigning random addresses to internal hosts that never needed to connect directly to the internet because of any of a multitude of reasons. The problem was that these addresses were leaking and causing issues on the internet itself because there was a good chance that they were already in use by someone else. The same problem doesn't happen with domain names because the available address space in the TLD is almost unused; there are only a couple of hundred TLDs and most of those are two letter. So collisions never occur or are completely predictable ... until that guy at Apple. Here I was happily doing exactly what you suggested, I even looked up the domain that other people used so there wouldn't be any unexpected troubles down the line.
So because it wasn't officially reserved the guy at Apple decided to use the obvious private DNS domain that was being used for a private DNS namespace in a IETF working draft and by all of Microsoft's documentation in Apple's non-DNS protocol. And here I though that because the 800lb gorilla was sitting on it everybody else would be smart enough to avoid it. What fun!
So it now appears that a ".local" DNS domain is required for exactly the same reason that the IP address ranges were needed ... Some idiots are just too stupid to do it right and need to be persuaded with a stick.
How, easy, the IETF makes the working draft into a full RFC. My preference would be "without changes". I don't suppose it'll happen, maybe I'll just use xD 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Apple Bonjour Logo.png
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)