Apple, whose OS X Yosemite (10.10) will not even resolve DNS when
internet is down ("private networks don't exist"), simply chose the
wrong name for something that is basically only used by machines.
Their ".local" is not meant for manual use.
They could just as easily have called it ".mdns" or something -- OS X
will by default not show it anyway I'm sure.
So they have claimed something they were not entitled to and their
broken model of network computing is now the foundation of how to do
things?
* The local DNS server timeout issue is not really an issue; if you
didn't want that you shouldn't have chosen .local for mdns.
* .local leakage is no different from .home leakage and in this case
can be prevented
* redirecting local services would require upstream malicious .local
to be configured in DNS servers but is directly at odds with the
situation in which a _local_ .local DNS server is configured, so can
also be solved by only allowing .local to get out if there IS a local
.local DNS server
* The only real argument that remains is name resolution; automatic
changing of host names in cast of conflicts. RFC 6762 notes that
"Implementers MAY choose to look up such names concurrently via other
mechanisms (e.g., Unicast DNS) and coalesce the results in some
fashion. Implementers choosing to do this should be aware of the
potential for user confusion when a given name can produce different
results depending on external network conditions (such as, but not
limited to, which name lookup mechanism responds faster)."
Lennart likes to scream about people not listening to the designers; but
what does he do?
The typical use case of a merged system is when DHCP provides DNS through
supplied
hostnames, there is no resolution in that sense, at least no standard one.
The DHCP set would remain unchanged (and unresolved) while the mDNS set,
oblivious
to anything happening in unicast DNS, would produce different names where
some of them
would change, adding new ones to the total set. Those new names would only
be resolvable
through mDNS. Unless you were talking about a huge network (why would you
use multicast
in such a system?) the actual prevalence of such conflicts and confusion
must be considered
low.
I think it can be argued that discovery is a much more important aspect of
mDNS than
resolution because most hardware devices pick MAC-based names and most
operating systems
also pick randomized names by default.
Anything else reeks of configuration, and if you configure, you are
not in zeroconf.
So there aren't really any reasons that are deal-breaking, and those that
exist are caused
by mDNS' insistence to use for its automated system a human-meaningful name
such as .local,
which is a design flaw.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/80900
Title:
Avahi daemon prevents resolution of FQDNs ending in ".local" due to
false negatives in the detection of ".local" networks
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/avahi/+bug/80900/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
