Derek Martin: > To clarify even further, TCP/IP networking does not in any way require > FQDNs to work properly (see below for more on that). Therefore any > software which absolutely mandates the use of FQDNs is broken, by the > above definition. While agree that you can use IP addresses, with no absolute need for names, if you're using names then there probably are cases that a FQDN is essential. Though, one could well be a FQDN without subdomains: e.g. "localhost." (deliberate trailing dot). Tim: >> I certainly find having a local network domain name useful. > Of course. I never said it wasn't useful. But if you're smart enough > to realize the utility, why wouldn't you also be smart enough to > realize that you should get your own, legitimate domain? It's not > exactly expensive... so it's hard to argue that the cost is > prohibitive. If you can afford the thousands of dollars to have the > multiple computers neccessary to constitute a network (it ain't a > network unless there are at least two computers involved), chances are > you can afford a few bucks every year (or two) to register your own > domain. I'll take that as being a statement "in general", I've already said that I have a real domain name. > Remember also that my original point was primarily that under no > circumstances is there any technical need for 127.0.0.0/8 to have a > FQDN associated with it. On one PC that I have, it didn't associate "localhost" with the 127.0.0.1 local loopback address until I wrote a hosts file. That surprised me, I though it was built in, by default. > I only extended the argument to non-loopback interfaces because you > insisted that a reserved domain name is needed for local networks; I > don't agree, so I followed throuh to make the point: even when you ARE > internetworking with a bunch of other machines, an FQDN is not > strictly required. I still maintain that it would be a good idea to have a reserved name for LANs. It would stop some people from making up arbitrary, and problematic ones, if there was already a predetermined one for common use that they might use in their recipe-book style of how to set up a network instructions that people seem to follow. Imagine the mess we'd be in if nobody used "localhost" and one person would advise you to test something against "localhost" and the other would say "huh?" It gives you a common, simple, starting point. > For local networks, DNS is utterly and completely unnecessary, and so > too are FQDNs. I'm not so sure that I'd go along with that. Try booting up a graphical Linux client station without a hostname associated with a local IP address, and you're in for a bit of grief. It doesn't like the idea of you being user at 127.0.0.1 or unresolveable hostname. While you might argue it's not an essential thing, I'd say that it's an established behaviour for so many years, now, that to suggest it should work in some other way is talking to a brick wall. > If you want to use a reserved domain for this purpose, there are > several already, you're free to use one of those. But I think that's > a bad idea. It's a lot of needless configuration, and if you should > need to connect those systems to the net later, you'll just need to do > it all over again. Better to have some forsight and get a real > domain. Now, I would agree with that. But a few years ago, here, registering a domain name was an expensive process. It still can be (we'd be paying $100 for what other countries charge $1). > Well, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, to sum it all up: > If you are not participating in the public Internet, there simply is > NO NEED to have one, and I can't even think of a useful purpose that > it serves to have a fake one, if your network consists of only a > handful of hosts. Testing SSL communications, in-house. They need domain names for the certificates. :-p > So if you are avoiding registering a legitimate one for some valid > reason, you may as well not use one at all, and stick to hostnames > only. If you ARE participating in the public Internet, you should > have a LEGITIMATE domain. None of this necessitates a FQDN > for 127.0.0.1, and nothing ever will, other than broken software. I'm not sure why 127.0.0.1 comes into the argument. I was talking about local networks, not just the one machine. -- Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
