BrikoX@lemmy.zipM to Technology@lemmy.zipEnglish · 9 months agoICANN proposes creating .INTERNAL domain to do the same job as 192.168.x.xwww.theregister.comexternal-linkmessage-square12fedilinkarrow-up144arrow-down11 cross-posted to: selfhosted@lemmy.world
arrow-up143arrow-down1external-linkICANN proposes creating .INTERNAL domain to do the same job as 192.168.x.xwww.theregister.comBrikoX@lemmy.zipM to Technology@lemmy.zipEnglish · 9 months agomessage-square12fedilink cross-posted to: selfhosted@lemmy.world
minus-squareDagamant@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·edit-29 months agoIs 192.168.x.x not reserved for local networks? I’m pretty sure it isn’t used for public addresses. That link specifically says don’t use .local for public dns, use it for local mdns.
minus-squareShadow@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·edit-29 months agoYou get into trouble when people spin up AD at corp.local and then it grows and grows. Rfc1918 defines 192.168 as internal only, yes.
Is 192.168.x.x not reserved for local networks? I’m pretty sure it isn’t used for public addresses. That link specifically says don’t use .local for public dns, use it for local mdns.
You get into trouble when people spin up AD at corp.local and then it grows and grows.
Rfc1918 defines 192.168 as internal only, yes.