Le vendredi 9 décembre 2022, 10:07:20 CET Esko Dijk a écrit : > > Isn't that what the RFC 6762 recommends? > > It is required (MUST). The optional thing the RFC states after this > requirement: > Implementers MAY choose to look up such names concurrently via other > mechanisms (e.g., Unicast DNS) and coalesce the results in some > fashion.
Sorry, I understood "MUST" too restrictively and missed this second paragraph. You are right. > This is why I asked about whether a parallel lookup is possible; which would > be according to the standard and would work for the particular use case of > networks that have ".local" in use for unicast DNS. > Unfortunately that > doesn't work with nsswitch, if I understand Petr correctly. I always understood /etc/nsswitch.conf as trying one method of resolution after the other sequentially: for example first local files, then multicast DNS, then unicast DNS. No room for anything more complex. The only option is what to do in case of a negative answer, continue with next method or not. As for your original question "whether (...) exist deployed .local zones in unicast DNS with a real data", I can confirm from personal experience that it is very common. Many people are seduced by the name "local" and use it for their local unicast DNS resolution. Best, -- Éric Bischoff
