[Dnsmasq-discuss] Is empty domain OK?

[William Edwards]

Grant Edwards schreef op 2022-10-18 15:50:
> On 2022-10-18, William Edwards <wedwards at cyberfusion.nl> wrote:
>> Grant Edwards schreef op 2022-10-18 03:03:
>> 
>>> All of the examples I see for setting up dnsmasq on networks without 
>>> a
>>> "real" domain always say to choose a "fake" local domain (e.g. .lan,
>>> .home.arpa, .local, etc.). Then you also configure dnsmask to treat
>>> that domain as local so that requests for that domain are never
>>> forwarded.
>>> 
>>> Why?
>>> 
>>> Are you not allowed to have have an empty domain so that "plain"
>>> hostnames are satisfied locall (e.g. from /etc/hosts and the DHCP
>>> leases) and only requests with a domain are forwarded to the external
>>> server?
>> 
>> DNS supports this.
> 
> Yes, I knew that.
> 
>> I don't know if dnsmasq does.
> 
> That's what I was trying to ask. I guess I wasn't clear enough.
> 
>> Regardless of whether it's technically possible: why would you want
>> this?
> 
> If there is no domain name for a network, then it seems logical to not
> use a domain name for that network. Making up a fake one which might
> later conflict with a real, external, domain seems like the wrong way
> to go about things.

That's why .local is a reserved TLD.

> 
>> This will cause issues. Many hostname validators require the
>> presence of a dot, for example.
> 
> That's an interesting point. Where does one run into such "hostname
> validators"?

Anywhere in userland.

> 
>> Would a search domain work for you?
> 
> I don't know what you mean by "a search domain".

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

> 
> --
> Grant
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss

-- 
With kind regards,

William Edwards