TP-Link forgets to renew two domains used to connect to its networking devices
yahoo.com
yahoo.com
This doesn't make any sense to me. TP-Link changes hosts and they lose that IP address. A domain name is far better for customers. Unless I'm missing something here?
Wait, what???
I thought it was annoying as well, then I lost one. Luckily it was something I could change easily.
In my case, make stupid decisions, get stupid prizes.
[1]: https://cabforum.org/internal-names/
[2]: https://support.comodo.com/index.php?/Default/Knowledgebase/...
A much more useful approach would be the existence of a reserved TLD for private use analogue to the private IP address space. But it seems like nothing like that has been defined.
Update:
Out of curiosity i did search for some more information if "example." is a valid domain or not...
While technically valid and [0]used for while by some TLD registries, ICANN has [1]forbidden the use of so called dotless domains. Google planned to use "search." but it was [2]declined.
[0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7085
[1] https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2013-08-30-en
[2] http://www.zdnet.com/article/icann-kills-google-dotless-doma...
This should be fixable over local DNS settings in the router
This is how Netgear works. routerlogin.com gets resolved locally to the IP of my router. It would be foolish to have it resolved by something on the internet as router setup often involves doing things when the internet isn't working.
That said, its foolish to not have those domains in your back-pocket, but I imagine budget router OEMs are run like shitshows in general and that's probably the least of your problems. Often they just rebadge a reference router made by $no_name_company, no better than an alibaba reseller. I've always considered these cheapo routers to be a sort of bargain with the devil, sure they're cheap and less hassle than setting up pfsense, but you know you're getting a substandard product with no real support and probably more than a couple significant security risks.
I bought two TP-Link extenders about 3-6 months ago. Whenever I visited the addresses in the documentation shipped with the extenders my browser window received dozens of pop unders and redirect loops.
I only found out what the internal web address was by going directly to the website and downloading some firmware software which they supply for debugging.
I got these extenders from Amazon so don't really believe what the article says about timeframes.
Quite common problem as it seems: http://forum.tp-link.com/showthread.php?7518-tplinkextender....
Ease of configuration ? Because even if I type the domain name, my connection has to be in the same subnet already manually or via DHCP, since the domain resolves 192.168.1.1.
I guess some manager scored a big raise for this gem.
Then again, a decent amount of people don't know what a hostname is, either, and find everything through Google anyway.
They could hardcode the servers IP, but then they can't ever move their infrastructure (horrible idea). So they do the reasonable thing and put the name in DNS. Where do you imagine the lookup for this .local name being directed, and how will it end up at TP-Link's current management server?
I also do not know anything about the configuration of these devices, i just assumed it is just a convenient way to access the local web interface for configuration of the device. If there really is a centralized service on the internet needed to configure the device it would be somewhat problematic to set these devices up or not?
$ nslookup tplinklogin.net
Server: 192.168.1.1
Address: 192.168.1.1#53
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: tplinklogin.net
Address: 192.168.1.1
---
An external request:
$ nslookup tplinklogin.net
Server: 2001:4860:4860::8844
Address: 2001:4860:4860::8844#53
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: tplinklogin.net
Address: 103.224.212.249
Either way, the domain only makes sense locally. This is also why the domains still work even though they no longer own them. Therefore, if there were a local TLD, this would be the proper use-case for it.
people would type login tplink into google/bing
from a usability standpoint this solution wouldnt work.
people would type in login .tplink .com
https://www.google.com/search?q=login+.tplink+.com then 301
people would type login tplink into google/bing
https://www.google.com/search?q=login+tplink then 301
This serious problem you describe, of cavemen and preschoolers who don't know about URLs, has been solved now for a long time. 301 is part of that solution. The tp-link.com site is perfectly capable of examining Referer and using that information to help tplink users.
However, since we've already established upthread that the router controls everything about the online experience, it would be no problem redirect the first navigation through an unconfigured router to a "wizard" page.
there is no reason to insult the people in their 20's 30's 40's 50's 60's 70's or 80's who are confused about the difference between a search bar and address bar (especially considering the major browsers merge them)
the unified bar has led to a sharp decline in people being able or caring to type correctly configured urls.
(I've done some dabbling in web applications intended for internet-disconnected networks with somewhat unreliable local DNS servers, such as cruise ship networks, and .local if it worked reliably enough across platforms would probably help a lot instead of trying to pass around IP addresses.)
Usually one of the first things I do when I set up a new router is generate two random numbers between 0-254 (say, 218 and 133) and make the local subnet:
10.218.133.0/24
I frequently VPN to other private networks, and when the local/remote address spaces overlap, like when both are 192.168.1.1/24, then the VPN has problems.