On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 13:41 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > I don't think you've provided any substantial reason why for a > stand-alone network, one is required. And I assert that you will not > find one. Though I've been wrong before... ;-) I'm sure someone could come up with a reason for a need for one, I certainly find having a local network domain name useful. I run a small network, it has it's own DNS server, tied in with a DHCPD server. Guests get assigned IPs and names, as well as a domain name (it's filling in all the blanks, as far as networking is concerned). Most local machines have fixed addresses, though some are dynamic so I can test things out. Determination of what is local or external is quite easy using either IP addresses or names, for filtering or other reasons (simple use the HTTP proxy, don't use the proxy, selections, etc.). Granted that either name or IP can be changed by malicious users, to sidestep filtering, but the chances of that are slim, here. Having a domain name also avoids the nonsense you get when you call your mail server "mail" (sans-domain name) and your ISP does the same silly trick. Since having a domain name is the norm, as far as internet-style networking is concerned. I'd say it's a bit of a bizarre want to avoid them. -- Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
