name resolution

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
82 messages Options
12345
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

name resolution

Xen
So I have two issues.

One is that nsswitch resolution of .local domain doesn't work
(explicitly):



ping john.local

<no response>


ping john

PING john.local (192.168.0.151) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.0.151: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.38 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.151: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.53 ms

The other is that NetworkManager does not use the "domain" returned from
DHCP to set up a "split" domain with requests for domain ("local") going
to the DNS server acquired via DHCP.

In case you have another connection (e.g. mobile).

NetworkManager supports this:

[global-dns]
searches=local

[global-dns-domain-local]
servers=192.168.0.3

[global-dns-domain-*]
servers=8.8.8.8

Apparently it works (now) but "nmcli device show" does not list ANYTHING
about those entries.

However I am a bit quick to speak as the dnsmasq log shows that it's
working now:

Nov 23 15:15:32 kubuntu dnsmasq[31666]: setting upstream servers from
DBus
Nov 23 15:15:32 kubuntu dnsmasq[31666]: using nameserver 192.168.20.3#53
for domain local
Nov 23 15:15:32 kubuntu dnsmasq[31666]: using nameserver 8.8.8.8#53

Even though it is not reflected in "nmcli device show"

The "default" section is required, bit annoying, so I use google DNS.

So this part is covered now (yay!)

The downside is that this is a static configuration, not from DHCP.




But I still can't ping .local explicitly.

$ host john.local
john.local has address 192.168.0.151

Host queries the nameserver directly.

$ dig john.local @127.0.1.1

; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4-Ubuntu <<>> john.local @127.0.1.1
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 27651
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;john.local.                  IN      A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
john.local.           0       IN      A       192.168.0.151

;; Query time: 1 msec
;; SERVER: 127.0.1.1#53(127.0.1.1)
;; WHEN: Thu Nov 23 15:26:04 CET 2017
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 57




$ dig john.local @192.168.0.3

; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4-Ubuntu <<>> john.local @192.168.0.3
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 35335
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;john.local.                  IN      A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
john.local.           0       IN      A       192.168.0.151

;; Query time: 1 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.0.3#53(192.168.0.3)
;; WHEN: Thu Nov 23 15:27:36 CET 2017
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 57




Anyone got any ideas?

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: name resolution

Liam Proven
On 23 November 2017 at 15:30, Xen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Anyone got any ideas?

.local has special side effects and breaks bits of the modern TCP/IP
network stack.

I suggest changing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.local



--
Liam Proven • Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: [hidden email] • Google Mail/Talk/Plus: [hidden email]
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven • Skype/LinkedIn/AIM/Yahoo: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 • ČR/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +420 702 829 053

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: name resolution

Xen
Liam Proven schreef op 23-11-2017 16:22:

> .local has special side effects and breaks bits of the modern TCP/IP
> network stack.
>
> I suggest changing it.

Jesus christ you are right, mdns4_minimal breaks the resolution.

The only...

thing...

Such fuckers again.

The only special side effect is that it contains a [NOTFOUND=return]
line that breaks the further resolution.

But mdns4_minimal also causes a timeout of about 4 seconds before it
proceeds.

So you really have to put it after dns.

Great, so all Linux boxes are broken now.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.local

Thanks.

The only thing that breaks it though is nsswitch.conf.

So because "they" took over this name (even though it is not useful to
me)

*I* now can't use it anymore.

Then, when .here becomes popular, they take that over too ;-).

Lol but now I know what patch to execute, thanks.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: name resolution

compdoc
On 11/23/2017 09:58 AM, Xen wrote:

> Then, when .here becomes popular, they take that over too ;-).

I've switched to .lan

anyone know of troubles with that one?

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: name resolution

Liam Proven
On 23 November 2017 at 18:01, compdoc <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 11/23/2017 09:58 AM, Xen wrote:
>
>> Then, when .here becomes popular, they take that over too ;-).
>
>
> I've switched to .lan
>
> anyone know of troubles with that one?

Back when I ran my own LAN -- oh happy days -- I _think_ I picked that, too.

I think that it's safe.

And, as Xen says... for now.

--
Liam Proven • Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: [hidden email] • Google Mail/Talk/Plus: [hidden email]
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven • Skype/LinkedIn/AIM/Yahoo: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 • ČR/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +420 702 829 053

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: name resolution

Xen
Liam Proven schreef op 23-11-2017 18:23:

> On 23 November 2017 at 18:01, compdoc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 11/23/2017 09:58 AM, Xen wrote:
>>
>>> Then, when .here becomes popular, they take that over too ;-).
>>
>>
>> I've switched to .lan
>>
>> anyone know of troubles with that one?
>
> Back when I ran my own LAN -- oh happy days -- I _think_ I picked that,
> too.
>
> I think that it's safe.
>
> And, as Xen says... for now.

I just think it's another bad choice and it happens to have been pushed
by mr. SystemD himself.

Yes, Lennart Poettering also maintains the Avahi packages.

It's the same kind of "Your opinions don't matter" approach that we see
everywhere else.

He writes:

"   Please note: The line above makes nss-mdns authoritative for the
    .local domain. If you have a unicast DNS domain with the same name
you
    will no longer be able to resolve hosts from it. mDNS and a unicast
    DNS domain named .local are inherently incompatible. Please contact
    your local admistrator and ask him to move to a different domain name
    since .local is to be used exclusively for Zeroconf technology.
    [26]Further information."

"is to be used"

Because they decide that.



This encroachment on personal liberty goes on everywhere.

Every router could just as easily deploy dnsmasq and have DHCP requests
turn into name resolution as I have.

It solves the same problem and people need DHCP routers anyway.

Oh, but they try to get rid of that too of course.

In the end there will be no way left to run any personal server.

So of course Apple picked the most attractive name that everyone already
used.

Microsoft used it, and Apple started using it.

It is the common choice.

And the above line is bollocks:

"mDNS and a unicast DNS domain named .local are inherently
incompatible."

You could just as well let local dns supersede.

Yes that would cause leackage onto the internet.

But normally inside the home you have a router, and normally you use the
router as a proxy for DNS.

So the router might just as well block .local requests from getting out.

Again, different solution to the same problem, and a lot nicer.

Something that's actually respectful of people's choices.

/End rant.





I mean it is really this simple:




# do not use /etc/resolv.conf, because it points to ourselves.
no-resolv

# attach suffix to hostnames
expand-hosts

# do not forward plain names to upstream servers (no use)
domain-needed

# do not forward reverse lookup for 192.168.1.0/24 to upstream servers
(no use)
bogus-priv

# references the DNS server to forward to
server=8.8.8.8

# tells what domains to answer for, instead of forwarding:
local=/local/

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: name resolution

Tom H-4
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Xen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I just think it's another bad choice and it happens to have been pushed by
> mr. SystemD himself.
>
> Yes, Lennart Poettering also maintains the Avahi packages.
>
> It's the same kind of "Your opinions don't matter" approach that we see
> everywhere else.
>
> He writes:
>
> " Please note: The line above makes nss-mdns authoritative for the
> .local domain. If you have a unicast DNS domain with the same name you
> will no longer be able to resolve hosts from it. mDNS and a unicast
> DNS domain named .local are inherently incompatible. Please contact
> your local admistrator and ask him to move to a different domain name
> since .local is to be used exclusively for Zeroconf technology.
> [26]Further information."
>
> "is to be used"
>
> Because they decide that.
>
> This encroachment on personal liberty goes on everywhere.

It was an Apple decision not Lennart one.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: name resolution

Joel Rees

2017/11/24 6:34 "Tom H" <[hidden email]>:
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Xen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I just think it's another bad choice and it happens to have been pushed by
> > mr. SystemD himself.
> >
> > Yes, Lennart Poettering also maintains the Avahi packages.
> >
> > It's the same kind of "Your opinions don't matter" approach that we see
> > everywhere else.
> >
> > He writes:
> >
> > " Please note: The line above makes nss-mdns authoritative for the
> > .local domain. If you have a unicast DNS domain with the same name you
> > will no longer be able to resolve hosts from it. mDNS and a unicast
> > DNS domain named .local are inherently incompatible. Please contact
> > your local admistrator and ask him to move to a different domain name
> > since .local is to be used exclusively for Zeroconf technology.
> > [26]Further information."
> >
> > "is to be used"
> >
> > Because they decide that.
> >
> > This encroachment on personal liberty goes on everywhere.
>
> It was an Apple decision not Lennart one.

Or, if you prefer, Poettering using Apple as an excuse.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: name resolution

Xen
In reply to this post by Tom H-4
Tom H schreef op 23-11-2017 22:32:

> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Xen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I just think it's another bad choice and it happens to have been
>> pushed by
>> mr. SystemD himself.
>>
>> Yes, Lennart Poettering also maintains the Avahi packages.
>>
>> It's the same kind of "Your opinions don't matter" approach that we
>> see
>> everywhere else.
>>
>> He writes:
>>
>> " Please note: The line above makes nss-mdns authoritative for the
>> .local domain. If you have a unicast DNS domain with the same name you
>> will no longer be able to resolve hosts from it. mDNS and a unicast
>> DNS domain named .local are inherently incompatible. Please contact
>> your local admistrator and ask him to move to a different domain name
>> since .local is to be used exclusively for Zeroconf technology.
>> [26]Further information."
>>
>> "is to be used"
>>
>> Because they decide that.
>>
>> This encroachment on personal liberty goes on everywhere.
>
> It was an Apple decision not Lennart one.

Apple didn't decide for the rest of the world.

Today Apple has a market share of about 11% with OS X, but in 2009 this
was 3,7%.

There is no reason whatsoever that mDNS has to precede DNS.

The only "reason" for that is to prevent leakage onto the internet,
which are queries to the root domain for .local, which returns NULL.

At every stage, this can be blocked by DNS servers, and probably is.

If you put mDNS AFTER dns, it will still work, and not frustrate
operation of the DNS system.

The delay in first accessing the global DNS system and only then mDNS is
minimal.

The reverse is not true; mDNS has a timeout of about 4 seconds or
nearing that.

So by all extents and purposes, you should put mDNS AFTER DNS, unless of
course


YOU WANT TO EXTINGUISH THE USE OF THE LOCAL DOMAIN BY FORCIBLE MEASURES.

Which they are doing.

Not practical necessity.

Politics.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: name resolution

Xen
In reply to this post by Joel Rees
Joel Rees schreef op 24-11-2017 1:35:

>> It was an Apple decision not Lennart one.
>
> Or, if you prefer, Poettering using Apple as an excuse.

Exactly.

It has no practical necessity and it is pure politics.

It is coercing people to give up the .local domain by explicitly making
it impossible for them to use it on purpose.

There is no necessity for that coercion other than having an agenda
about it in the first place.

You can easily put mDNS last and it will never hurt you.

That is, you can change:


hosts:  files mdns5_minimal [NOTFOUND=return] dns


to


hosts:  files dns mdns5_minimal

And it will never hurt you one bit.


All your ZEROCONF technology will keep working and to boot you can use
the .local domain.

It's that simple.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: name resolution

Xen
Xen schreef op 24-11-2017 7:32:

> It is coercing people to give up the .local domain by explicitly
> making it impossible for them to use it on purpose.

Also, the bug lies with apple.

OS X need to be configured to use the .local domain.



This is because they equally block .local queries if they cannot be
resolved by mDNS.

It is the same configuration error.




And this configuration error has now become a worldwide standard.

I hope you do see that certain people are just hell bent on destroying
the entire ecosystem as much as they can.

And 90% of people here, or at least globally in the Linux community, are
sheep that will just go along with anything.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: name resolution

Nils Kassube-2
In reply to this post by Xen
Xen wrote:

> So by all extents and purposes, you should put mDNS AFTER DNS, unless
> of course
>
> YOU WANT TO EXTINGUISH THE USE OF THE LOCAL DOMAIN BY FORCIBLE
> MEASURES.
>
> Which they are doing.
>
> Not practical necessity.
>
> Politics.

As I understand it, you are not supposed to use any private domain
names. Otherwise ICANN would have reserved a specific domain name for
private use, just like there are private IP adresses. So if you use an
unregistered domain name you are on your own and have to live with the
consequences if it gets assigned for something else. If you want to
avoid that the domain name of your LAN is in use or gets "stolen" by
someone else, you should register a domain.


Nils


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: name resolution

Joel Rees

2017/11/24 16:11 "Nils Kassube" <[hidden email]>:
>
> Xen wrote:
> > So by all extents and purposes, you should put mDNS AFTER DNS, unless
> > of course
> >
> > YOU WANT TO EXTINGUISH THE USE OF THE LOCAL DOMAIN BY FORCIBLE
> > MEASURES.
> >
> > Which they are doing.
> >
> > Not practical necessity.
> >
> > Politics.
>
> As I understand it, you are not supposed to use any private domain
> names. Otherwise ICANN would have reserved a specific domain name for
> private use, just like there are private IP adresses. So if you use an
> unregistered domain name you are on your own and have to live with the
> consequences if it gets assigned for something else. If you want to
> avoid that the domain name of your LAN is in use or gets "stolen" by
> someone else, you should register a domain.

You know, this is something that has always bugged me about the Internet. We preach decentralization, but we do the opposite. The foundation was laid pretty well, but when large corporation X, Y, or Z does something against it, we go belly up to the bar.

Inside your own network, ".local", ".apple", and ".redneck" should be up to you.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: name resolution

Tom H-4
In reply to this post by Joel Rees
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Joel Rees <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2017/11/24 6:34 "Tom H" <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Xen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I just think it's another bad choice and it happens to have been
>>> pushed by mr. SystemD himself.
>>>
>>> Yes, Lennart Poettering also maintains the Avahi packages.
>>>
>>> It's the same kind of "Your opinions don't matter" approach that we
>>> see everywhere else.
>>>
>>> He writes:
>>>
>>> " Please note: The line above makes nss-mdns authoritative for the
>>> .local domain. If you have a unicast DNS domain with the same name
>>> you will no longer be able to resolve hosts from it. mDNS and a
>>> unicast DNS domain named .local are inherently incompatible. Please
>>> contact your local admistrator and ask him to move to a different
>>> domain name since .local is to be used exclusively for Zeroconf
>>> technology. [26]Further information."
>>>
>>> "is to be used"
>>>
>>> Because they decide that.
>>>
>>> This encroachment on personal liberty goes on everywhere.
>>
>> It was an Apple decision not Lennart one.
>
> Or, if you prefer, Poettering using Apple as an excuse.

Lennart re-implemented Apple's Bonjour as avahi, in the same way that
MS's smb was re-implemented by others as samba.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: name resolution

Tom H-4
In reply to this post by Xen
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Xen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Tom H schreef op 23-11-2017 22:32:
>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Xen <[hidden email]> wrote:


>>> I just think it's another bad choice and it happens to have been
>>> pushed by mr. SystemD himself.
>>>
>>> Yes, Lennart Poettering also maintains the Avahi packages.
>>>
>>> It's the same kind of "Your opinions don't matter" approach that we
>>> see everywhere else.
>>>
>>> He writes:
>>>
>>> " Please note: The line above makes nss-mdns authoritative for the
>>> .local domain. If you have a unicast DNS domain with the same name
>>> you will no longer be able to resolve hosts from it. mDNS and a
>>> unicast DNS domain named .local are inherently incompatible. Please
>>> contact your local admistrator and ask him to move to a different
>>> domain name since .local is to be used exclusively for Zeroconf
>>> technology. [26]Further information."
>>>
>>> "is to be used"
>>>
>>> Because they decide that.
>>>
>>> This encroachment on personal liberty goes on everywhere.
>>
>> It was an Apple decision not Lennart one.
>
> Apple didn't decide for the rest of the world.

It did.

It used SLP for zero config networking in pre OS X releases and in OS
X 10.0 and 10.1.

It started using Rendezvous for zero config networking in OS X 10.2,
renamed it Bonjour in OS X 10.5, and has been using it ever since.

Lennart re-implemented Bonjour, I've forgotten when, as a gpl-licensed
technology for use in Linux and BSD.


> There is no reason whatsoever that mDNS has to precede DNS.
>
> The only "reason" for that is to prevent leakage onto the internet, which
> are queries to the root domain for .local, which returns NULL.
>
> At every stage, this can be blocked by DNS servers, and probably is.
>
> If you put mDNS AFTER dns, it will still work, and not frustrate operation
> of the DNS system.
>
> The delay in first accessing the global DNS system and only then mDNS is
> minimal.
>
> The reverse is not true; mDNS has a timeout of about 4 seconds or nearing
> that.
>
> So by all extents and purposes, you should put mDNS AFTER DNS, unless of
> course

In your use-case, perhaps.

In the general use-case, all distributions have chosen the logical
choice of querying mdns before dns.


> YOU WANT TO EXTINGUISH THE USE OF THE LOCAL DOMAIN BY FORCIBLE MEASURES.
>
> Which they are doing.
>
> Not practical necessity.
>
> Politics.

Of course, practical necessity. You can plug a laptop into a network
and see all the network shares immediately, whether they're files or
printers (whether you can then access them is a different matter).
That's the meaning of "zeroconf."

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: name resolution

Tom H-4
In reply to this post by Xen
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Xen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> It is coercing people to give up the .local domain by explicitly making it
> impossible for them to use it on purpose.
>
> There is no necessity for that coercion other than having an agenda about it
> in the first place.

Giving up ".local" as a unicast domain in order to use it as the
default multicast domain is an insignificant sacrifice.

You can change the default mdns domain with "domain-name=" in
"/etc/avahi/avahi-daemon.conf".

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: name resolution

Gene Heskett-2
In reply to this post by Nils Kassube-2
On Friday 24 November 2017 02:07:26 Nils Kassube wrote:

> Xen wrote:
> > So by all extents and purposes, you should put mDNS AFTER DNS,
> > unless of course
> >
> > YOU WANT TO EXTINGUISH THE USE OF THE LOCAL DOMAIN BY FORCIBLE
> > MEASURES.
> >
> > Which they are doing.
> >
> > Not practical necessity.
> >
> > Politics.
>
> As I understand it, you are not supposed to use any private domain
> names.

Thats BS, the warm, squishy stuff usually found on the ground behind the
male bovine.

> Otherwise ICANN would have reserved a specific domain name for
> private use, just like there are private IP adresses. So if you use an
> unregistered domain name you are on your own and have to live with the
> consequences if it gets assigned for something else. If you want to
> avoid that the domain name of your LAN is in use or gets "stolen" by
> someone else, you should register a domain.

I have, see my sig, thats actually this machine, but it is NOT my local
domain name and never will be.

ICANN does not, cannot, control what I use for a domain name on my side
of a router doing NAT for you to gain access to my web pages via my
registered domain name, in fact that lack of a dns resolution is part of
my security model.  And its worked well, only one person has gained
access to my local network system in a decade+, and I had to give him
the passwords to get past every layer of that security. dd-wrt is very
good at what it does.

> Nils


Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: name resolution

Xen
In reply to this post by Nils Kassube-2
Nils Kassube schreef op 24-11-2017 8:07:

> Xen wrote:
>> So by all extents and purposes, you should put mDNS AFTER DNS, unless
>> of course
>>
>> YOU WANT TO EXTINGUISH THE USE OF THE LOCAL DOMAIN BY FORCIBLE
>> MEASURES.
>>
>> Which they are doing.
>>
>> Not practical necessity.
>>
>> Politics.
>
> As I understand it, you are not supposed to use any private domain
> names.

This is fucking bullshit of course.

I mean why don't you stop telling such things.

> Otherwise ICANN would have reserved a specific domain name for
> private use, just like there are private IP adresses.

There was no necessity because the number of top level domains was very
limited.

This was different with IPs, so your conclusion doesn't follow.

There were so few tlds, and none with anything longer than 3 characters,
that no trouble ever arose and also didn't need to be governed.

This does not equate "Are not supposed to use it."

Private use of IPs was rampant and necessitated governance, this does
not mean that before the governance people were "not supposed to" use
any IPs on their (often disconnected) private networks.

Or any private IPs for that matter.

In fact without such disconnected use, the internet would never have
arisen.

The governance came after the fact after collisions started occurring.

It was not meant to direct, but to respond to issues that arose.

Governance is not required when people are not in conflict.

> So if you use an
> unregistered domain name you are on your own and have to live with the
> consequences if it gets assigned for something else.

Assigned for what?

For registration?

We are not talking about domain names. We are talking about top level
domains.

Of which about 10 existed + country codes.

You don't even seem to see the difference.

> If you want to
> avoid that the domain name of your LAN is in use or gets "stolen" by
> someone else, you should register a domain.

Yes, you don't see the difference.

How does one, oh great Nils, register a top level domain for private
use?

Tell me how an individual can register a top level domain just for him
or herself.

:).

I mean, I don't want to, but I'd love to learn :).

I mean you are the one admonishing me here.



So I suppose you know what you are talking about?

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: name resolution

Xen
In reply to this post by Tom H-4
Tom H schreef op 24-11-2017 9:47:

> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Joel Rees <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 2017/11/24 6:34 "Tom H" <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Xen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I just think it's another bad choice and it happens to have been
>>>> pushed by mr. SystemD himself.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, Lennart Poettering also maintains the Avahi packages.
>>>>
>>>> It's the same kind of "Your opinions don't matter" approach that we
>>>> see everywhere else.
>>>>
>>>> He writes:
>>>>
>>>> " Please note: The line above makes nss-mdns authoritative for the
>>>> .local domain. If you have a unicast DNS domain with the same name
>>>> you will no longer be able to resolve hosts from it. mDNS and a
>>>> unicast DNS domain named .local are inherently incompatible. Please
>>>> contact your local admistrator and ask him to move to a different
>>>> domain name since .local is to be used exclusively for Zeroconf
>>>> technology. [26]Further information."
>>>>
>>>> "is to be used"
>>>>
>>>> Because they decide that.
>>>>
>>>> This encroachment on personal liberty goes on everywhere.
>>>
>>> It was an Apple decision not Lennart one.
>>
>> Or, if you prefer, Poettering using Apple as an excuse.
>
> Lennart re-implemented Apple's Bonjour as avahi, in the same way that
> MS's smb was re-implemented by others as samba.

No one forced anyone to use SMB *or else*.

I don't think we need to be educated on the word "reimplementation".

The difference is in the coercion.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: name resolution

Xen
In reply to this post by Tom H-4
Tom H schreef op 24-11-2017 10:03:

>>>> Because they decide that.
>>>>
>>>> This encroachment on personal liberty goes on everywhere.
>>>
>>> It was an Apple decision not Lennart one.
>>
>> Apple didn't decide for the rest of the world.
>
> It did.
>
> It used SLP for zero config networking in pre OS X releases and in OS
> X 10.0 and 10.1.
>
> It started using Rendezvous for zero config networking in OS X 10.2,
> renamed it Bonjour in OS X 10.5, and has been using it ever since.

Where does that say "decide for the rest of the world"?

If I use something in my personal life, do I also decide for the rest of
the world?



> Lennart re-implemented Bonjour, I've forgotten when, as a gpl-licensed
> technology for use in Linux and BSD.

You're still not saying anything relevant.

We already knew that.


>> There is no reason whatsoever that mDNS has to precede DNS.
>>
>> The only "reason" for that is to prevent leakage onto the internet,
>> which
>> are queries to the root domain for .local, which returns NULL.
>>
>> At every stage, this can be blocked by DNS servers, and probably is.
>>
>> If you put mDNS AFTER dns, it will still work, and not frustrate
>> operation
>> of the DNS system.
>>
>> The delay in first accessing the global DNS system and only then mDNS
>> is
>> minimal.
>>
>> The reverse is not true; mDNS has a timeout of about 4 seconds or
>> nearing
>> that.
>>
>> So by all extents and purposes, you should put mDNS AFTER DNS, unless
>> of
>> course
>
> In your use-case, perhaps.
>
> In the general use-case, all distributions have chosen the logical
> choice of querying mdns before dns.

A choice is not a use case.

Please compare apples with apples.

What is the general use case that mandates that choice, and what makes
it logical?

I told you how it's not logical. Refute it please.

Or just don't say anything.

Calling it logical doesn't make it logical.

Calling a bear a honey-bird doesn't make a bear a honey-bird.


There is nothing logical about it, or you would have already said it by
now.



>> YOU WANT TO EXTINGUISH THE USE OF THE LOCAL DOMAIN BY FORCIBLE
>> MEASURES.
>>
>> Which they are doing.
>>
>> Not practical necessity.
>>
>> Politics.
>
> Of course, practical necessity. You can plug a laptop into a network
> and see all the network shares immediately, whether they're files or
> printers (whether you can then access them is a different matter).
> That's the meaning of "zeroconf."

This always used to be the case.

It was called "netbios".

Netbios wasn't forced on anyone and didn't use DNS.

And all the same, if "dns" precedes that, the above would still hold
true in mDNS.

So again, maybe stop explaining dictionary words and start talking
something real.

You have given no arguments, only "it exists so it must be for a good
reason".

Linux does not have a new filesharing system other than Samba/CIFS.

There is nothing new here.

This existed in freaking Windows 95.

That's the meaning of "zero conf", you know, that you could go to
Network and see all the computers in the workgroup, which was always the
same.

I went to LAN parties and saw dozens upon dozens of computers I could
access.

Zero configuration you know, in case you need the definition of that.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
12345