[KLUG Members] SuSE, Zeroconf, and the 'local' Domain

[Andrew Thompson]

On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 14:21, Adam Tauno WIlliams wrote:
> > Actually, the only possibility in which I'm interested is getting back
> > control of my chosen private domain name. I don't give beans or barley
> > for zeroconf.
> 
> Word on the street is that SuSe will be releasing an 'updated' glibc
> package where the mdns support can be disabled;  I assume as some type
> of NSS flag.

I hope so. I'll keep a lookout for it. Got any online links to this
particular "street"? I'd like to keep informed.

> > it. Presto! '.local' works again! (Make sure you're not running any
> > networking software while doing this, kids, but that's another story) So
> > what we have is a fundamental change to the C library to implement one
> > particular technology. I thought this was the sort of reason I got away
> > from Microsoft. Sorry, it's just not the way to do it. You want it? Make
> > it an option. Make it configurable. 
> 
> Agree, it should have been configurable;  and gotten s big notice
> somewhere as DNS is not something to play around with.

Yeah, that's kind of what I figured, hence my snark re *.com

> > Make it a switch in resolv.conf or
> > nsswitch.conf or whatever file seems most appropriate. It doesn't belong
> > in a core library. Even .com doesn't get that kind of privelege, does
> > it?
> 
> I think the only place it will work is at the resolver level,  but it
> should be configurable.  But I'd suspect that OTHER software will begin
> to make the same assumptions about ".local",  so in the future it might
> be less painful to choose something else.

Well, I think the resolver must be going through one of those config
files I mentioned, because one of both of those is where you tell it
where to check first: hosts, dns, nis... I think ldap is an option, too,
but doesn't seem to be mentioned in the docs I've seen. I would think
that simply adding mdns or zeroconf or some such to the list would
_probably_ be the most compatible approach.

As for other software making assumptions, that's exactly what it should
NOT be doing. I think Bob would have a word or two to say about this, if
he could spare the time to comment.

-- 
Andrew Thompson <tempes at ameritech.net>
The Imagerie