Derek Martin: >>> And IMO you shouldn't... localhost is localhost -- it >>> isn't in a domain; that's the whole point. The entire 127.0.0.0/8 >>> network refers to your local machine. Tim: >> See RFC 2606: <http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2606.html> But note >> "traditional" and the warning off (which doesn't explicitly preclude >> it's use, that way). Derek, again: > I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. My reading of the RFC > agrees with what I wrote above. If your point was something > different, then I guess I'll have to ask you to clarify... It doesn't explicitly say that localhost means 127.0.0.1, it says that it's a top level domain name. Commonly used for that purpose, and might not work well for other uses (actually used as a top level domain name), but it is one. >> What is needed is a reserved domain name for local hosting of servers, > Why? If the hosts are on a network which is connected to the > Internet, they'll have their own domain already. If they're not, then > no domain is needed. Or, if for the convenience of managing your > network, having domains makes sense, then you should register a domain > name anyway, even if you're not going to use it on the Internet. That > way, if a time comes when you WANT to connect those systems to the > 'Net, you don't need to reconfigure them all. A simple reason is the sheer number of LANs with an internet connection where some bozo has taken someone else's domain named and used it themselves, then misuses in public, too. Not to mention the problems they'll have with their own network when something resolves to an outside address. I have my own domain name, and it certainly does make a lot of networking easier if you don't have to fiddle around doing daft things. You can use a real domain name in the same way as everywhere else, and don't have to use IP addresses. >> There's any number of things that want a FQDN, mail servers being the >> first thing that springs to mind. > I can't speak for all mail server software, but I'm pretty sure > sendmail doesn't require an FQDN. Which would make sense, since it > was written at a time when there were like 12 machines connected to > the Internet, and there were no FQDN's. :) And again, for those who > don't need to be connected to the Internet, this should not be a > requirement. For those that do require it, I say they're broken. :) I seem to recall that if you do try using user@fakename sort of address, it'll try appending something to make a FQDN, presuming that anything without a dot is just an alias. > The only server which SHOULD require a FQDN is the DNS server, for > (hopefully) obvious reasons. :) But even then, "myhost" can be a > top-level domain and have its own A record. That's just not a very > useful way to manage DNS. Still, possible. Making up names leads to the problem I brought up. If you just invent something, it can clash with something else. Now, or later. -- Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
