Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

968

TLDR; basically you can now use .internal for local/intranet and it will not resolve externally. I wish they would pick something shorter but this is better than nothing.

Archive: https://archive.today/DvNis

From the post:

>Whereas, on 18 September 2020, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published SAC113: SSAC Advisory on Private-Use TLDs (SAC113), recommending that the ICANN Board ensure a string is identified and reserved at the top level of the Domain Name System (DNS) for private use, and that this particular string must never be delegated.

TLDR; basically you can now use .internal for local/intranet and it will not resolve externally. I wish they would pick something shorter but this is better than nothing. Archive: https://archive.today/DvNis From the post: >>Whereas, on 18 September 2020, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published SAC113: SSAC Advisory on Private-Use TLDs (SAC113), recommending that the ICANN Board ensure a string is identified and reserved at the top level of the Domain Name System (DNS) for private use, and that this particular string must never be delegated.
You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (3).
[–] • 1 pt

We already have .local, why create another one?

[–] • 1 pt

Unless I read it incorrectly it has something to do with how .local is already used with stuff like mDNS and zero-config networking.

Maybe its just that people are stupid so having .internal will tell you that it is a "internal domain only" very easily? I know plenty of companies that use different domains for internal/external but they are still using a publicly routed TLD for one reason or another.