Hacker News Reader

Comment by unethical_ban | Hacker News Reader

Is it not recommended for the Part C to be done with a third, yet publicly owned, domain? Instead of widgets.local or widgets.internal, it would be widgets-internal.com or something.

Struggling to remember why, but I heard people mad about .local

View on HN

.local implies multi-cast DNS, you can't get a signed certificate for .local from any major certificate vendor either.

See: http://www.mdmarra.com/2012/11/why-you-shouldnt-use-local-in...

To avoid stupid software breakage you should never use .local for anything. Choose any other TLD for internal use, doesn't matter what it is, as long as it isn't a real TLD that exists in the new gTLD and ccTLD system.

On a large scale for all internal stuff you are going to have your own, internal root and intermediate CA. The root CA signs the intermediate CA, the intermediate CA then signs SSL/TLS certificates for your internal infrastructure things.

As an example for a mid sized ISP with such a setup, the internal ticket portal for the NOC is accessible only while physically in the office or when on the VPN, speaks TLS1.2 only to standard web browser clients, and its URL is https://portal.tickets.burrito

where the "burrito" is obviously not the real name, I've changed it for this example, but the choice of TLD in your own internal DNS infrastructure is totally arbitrary.

Then the individual clients all have the public certs for the internal corporate root and intermediate CA installed in them, so that they trust certificates signed by the internal CA.

If you're big enough to care about having a serious multi-state-scale intranet, you probably don't want to be reliant upon external CAs to sign your stuff. Having your own internal CAs lets you do a lot of other things as well, without additional cost, such as sign per-client-device certificates as well.

Please do not suggest people use TLDs that are not a part of the gTLD, ccTLD, sTLD, or any other TLD system. Just because they are not used now does not mean they will never be used. We just saw the effects of that with 1.1.1.1 DNS system, where people assumed it would never be used, and when it does, now things break.

Currently, the only reserved TLDs are:

- [RFC 6761] example

- [RFC 6761] invalid

- [RFC 6761] localhost

- [RFC 6761] test

- [RFC 6762] local

- [RFC 7686] onion

With the exception of localhost, local, and onion, these can be used without any worry about future use. Any others should be considered real TLDs and not be used unless you actually own the domain name under that TLD.

[RFC 6761]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6761

[RFC 6762]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6762

[RFC 7686]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7686

First, you're absolutely correct that people should not just choose random TLDs and attempt to use them. But I think you misunderstand me: I'm talking about doing purely internal DNS for things in private IP space that will never touch the internet. IP space that will never be announced to BGP peers and is thoroughly firewalled off from the Internet.

Let's say I have an ISP named Burrito Corporation.

I want to uniquely address equipment in my private management IP space VRF and have a proper hostname for every piece of equipment, both for "forward" and rDNS.

It's a pretty common setup to have internal BIND servers which are authoritative master/slave for the TLD .burritocorp , which also have an ACL allowing the internal IP space (10/8, etc) to query them. Then set up all internal DNS stub resolvers/client devices to query those servers.

Now I have a core POP in Toronto and I've decided to use airport codes for site names, so the internal management IP interfaces for things at that site might get a hostname which is hierarchically contained under yyz01.ca.burritocorp

It is unlikely in the extreme that ICANN is ever going to create a TLD named "burritocorp".

I am not suggesting that people go and try to use self-created TLDs for things that have real world IPs in the global BGP4 routing table. See section 6.1 of RFC6761.

I understand, but 1.1.1.1 was used by people for internal use, for example as a default for portals on wifi routers. Because of that, now anyone that wants to use the 1.1.1.1 DNS server can not when they are on wifi routers that use that IP as the traffic does not go where it was intended.

For example, my username is enzanki_ars. Let's say I set up enzanki.ars at home as a host for an in home only server. Now let's say that a new country registers .ars as a new TLD, for example Argentina as ARS is the ISO 4217 currency code for the Argentine peso. Now I am stepping over someone else's TLD, an someone could even register enzanki.ars before me and start using it.

My personal policy is "just because you can doesn't mean you should." If I wanted to disrespect the process we have in place to prevent people from stepping over other people's domains, I would have set up enzanki.ars already. Until then, 192.168.0.0/16 is how I reference my hosts at home.

Edit: See also: https://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/sp... for an up to date list of special use domains. "home.arpa." was recently assigned as one, and I may start using that one at home.

The 1/8 IP block, unlike anything from RFC1918, was never supposed to be used by anybody internally. RFC1918 was published 22 years ago so people have had ample time to stop being foolish.

With a totally internal DNS setup it doesn't matter even if ICANN does decide to create a ".ars" TLD someday. In such a theoretical setup, your clients are all querying your own internal DNS servers, and you are not publishing or pushing anything to the root nameservers. Your use of internal hostnames and rDNS for ".ars" internally does not conflict with or hurt anybody's use of their own domains in the real-world .ars out on the public Internet, and neither does their use of the domain affect your non-internet-connected management network. There is no "stepping over other domains".

> In such a theoretical setup, your clients are all querying your own internal DNS servers, and you are not publishing or pushing anything to the root nameservers.

And in the usages of 1.1.1.1, no one was publishing anything on BGP or pushing it out to global routing tables. However, they were building their own infrastructure (and, in the case of consumer routers, their customers' infrastructure) on the assumption that this portion of the namespace would never refer to an external resource they'd actually want to access.

Similarly, if you use .ars, you're taking up that namespace from the perspective of your internal users. If at some point it turns out that there is some resource under that name that you want to access, you're going to have a hell of a time rebuilding your infrastructure to not use that name.

tl;dr don't use random names in a globally-managed namespace. Even if you're the only person seeing those name -> resource mappings, you can end up with inconsistencies between your own usage and the globally-managed version.

> Similarly, if you use .ars, you're taking up that namespace from the perspective of your internal users. If at some point it turns out that there is some resource under that name that you want to access, you're going to have a hell of a time rebuilding your infrastructure to not use that name.

No, you're not, because an internal management network does not have a gateway out to the internet. The management VRF does not talk to the global routing table. There would be no way to access a public .ars website even if you did not take its namespace.

If it is never going to be exposed to the public internet, you might as well use .com, then at least when it does get connected to the public internet you’ll get feedback that it is broken pretty quickly.

I think the risk in that case is that I, a cloud computing startup also called BurritoCorp, get .burritocorp registered as a real TLD to host my state-of-the-art cloud services that perfectly solve the peculiar infrastructure needs of on-demand Mexican food delivery consumer brands such as yours, but sadly you have to block the entire TLD to prevent collisions with your internal infrastructure, because when I first launched, I caused a four-hour outage for you.

Internally your OS resolver will be configured to point to a different DNS than anyone external to your network. You essentially have a private branch of the DNS at that point. The only real potential for conflict is when the FQDN of an internal server is the same as for an external server. In that case your internal DNS will serve up a record pointing to your internal server, and external users will get a record pointing to an external server. If staff want to order fresh burritos over the Burrito-over-TCP protocol that will have to use separate equipment. But nobody outside your intranet will ever see a name conflict.

I could see an IT department using these (misguidedly) for purely internal purposes: .cam .camera .coop .drive .equipment .institute .media .network .systems .wiki. These are now registered TLDs. You are begging for someone to misconfigure something if you use trivial TLD names internally.

It USED to be that .local was fine; no one else and no other standard used it.

That changed; this is what people are / were mad about.

The point is that some standard CAN change any other similar thing at any point in the future; particularly now that you can buy a TLD.

Thus the lesson is, buy a real name and reserve the namespace.

the gTLD local is already registered and can't be 'stolen'. DNS servers should never route a query for that domain.

you even get a link to the RFC when installing kubernetes with the default domain name (which is local). I sadly forgot the number, so cant cite it.

this should be the rfc: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6762

from wikipedia:

> The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) standards-track RFC 6762 (February 20, 2013) reserves the use of the domain name label local as a pseudo-top-level domain for hostnames in local area networks that can be resolved via the Multicast DNS name resolution protocol.[1] Any DNS query for a name ending with the label local must be sent to the mDNS IPv4 link-local multicast address 224.0.0.251, or its IPv6 equivalent FF02::FB. Domain name ending in local, may be resolved concurrently via other mechanisms, e.g., unicast DNS.

There are two interwoven threads of logic in my post. You've mistaken the second as limited to the first when it is building upon it.

To clarify:

It /used/ to be that .local wasn't mentioned in any standard.

Don't do anything like .local (a non TLD and not part of a standard), because there is now a history of standards being created that break existing private deployments, and also because OTHER TLD like things can now be purchased as TLDs. That is why the current best practice is now to have an internal subdomain of a real domain (even if not globally published).

Somewhat common pattern for (C) is using names like foosrv45.hide.example.com if you don't want to register another domain for that purposes. For convenience of the DevOps team it even makes sense for such hostnames to be publicly resolvable (to your internal IPs).

One issue with doing this is that it tends to break in various wonderful ways when you internally use Windows and Active Directory.

For various security reasons it's a bad idea for your internal hostnames to be publicly resolvable from anywhere on the internet, unless you're on a VPN, and therefore possible for your client device stub resolver to query the internal DNS server that only talks to internal IP space.

Even if the internal hostnames only resolve to a non-globally-routable IP address somewhere in 10/8 or 172.16/12, etc.

In my opinion the convenience gained is more significant than these mostly theoretical "various security reasons".

In other words when exposing hostnames and addresses of your internal infrastructure to the public internet has meaningful security ramifications then you have considerably more critical security problem.

If you already have a proper, working VPN solution for remote access into the internal IP space, which any ISP will already have for network engineer staff and noc purposes... What great convenience do you gain by making the DNS and internal IP space scheme public?

Who said anything about making IP addresses public? You seem to be assuming registering a domain name implies delegating that domain to an actual name server that must respond to public requests. These assumptions are both incorrect.

Registering a domain prevents those names from being used for other purposes in the future. Your domain does not have to have valid NS addresses. Even if a domain has NS record with a valid address of the authoritative name server, that server does not have to respond to requests from the public internet. It doesn't even have to have to be accessible on the public internet.

Register a domain for internal use and run an internal name server on e.g. 10.x.y.z that handles your private IP space, and configure the local recursive resolver name servers to hand out your internal server's address when asked about the associated NS record. At the same time, set the real NS records for your internal domain to e.g. a traditional DNS hosting service that returns a CNAME pointing to your public domain. (the public internet only sees *.private.example.com as a CNAME to www-public-name-com.example.com)

I said nothing about making it public, because I don't view the possibility of someone capturing DNS packet of the kind "A? fooserv34.hide.example.com" as making anything public. (And even if your authoritative DNS server would allow AXFR for whole hide.example.com you would only leak information that is useful for somebody who also have capability to find out the exactly same information on his own).

The convenience is about not having whatever VPN solution you use to inject DNS recursors into laptop's OS, which end ups being not reasonably solvable when you have two such VPNs you have to use at once.

I hope you never have to experience the non-theoretical side of that decision.

The benefits of being able to resolve internal IPs external isn't even really a benefit - if I can't resolve internal.hostname.domain then I'm not on the VPN, which means I can't reach the machine anyway, so where's the benefit?

A perfect example of why this threat isn't merely theoretical is the $36k bug bounty that Google paid out recently[0]. With additional knowledge of their internal network exposed by the information leak from DNS, the damage a blackhat could have done is untold.

The problem isn't the exposition of hostnames and addresses, the problem is if blackhats do manage to get access to the internal network (through whatever means; breaking into the VPN, a hole in the firewall, social engineering, RCE in the public facing website as in Google's case), it's undoubtedly easier if they've been given a list of juicy targets, rather than have to discover them for themselves.

[0]https://sites.google.com/site/testsitehacking/-36k-google-ap...

And yet Google still believes VPN as a security boundary is an anti-pattern since the whole intranet is as weak as it's least secured node. https://cloud.google.com/beyondcorp/

I couldn't have put it better myself. I don't think the person who wants convenience has enable on any ASes routers, or at least I hope not. One thing I find interesting is that they're using 169.254/16. Doubtful Google uses DHCP for anything, their automated provisioning tools are probably quite unique. My best guess is that their stuff in that particular part of app engine is using the space because they've actually near exhausted the rest of rfc1918, which is pretty impressive.

The only other organization I know of that has done that is Comcast, which has been a leader in forcing vendor ipv6 support because they literally exhausted 10/8 for their management networks.

And .dev.

Nothing is really safe. Maybe an emoticon? IIRC, the use of emoticons was stopped after someone registered the poop symbol on .la.

from a dns server zonefile perspective, it's still plaintext, just some unicode string with the xn-- prefix on it...

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

https://panic.com/blog/the-worlds-first-emoji-domain/

http://xn--ls8h.la/

unicode 1f32e is the taco emoji, so i think I will be migrating all my internal things to http://servername.1f32e

What's worse about dev is that chrome auto-forwarded to the https version even if you were using it internally for testing using your hosts file.

That is the hsts preload list, used across bruises; .dev is no different than any other domain on the list, only that it was the first tld

maybe .local was not the best example. In my opinion it's recommended to do with something that's not a public domain at all, since your DNS is entirely internal, you can set up bind9 servers to be authoritative for the root. You could have it by anything totally arbitrary of your choice for a top level domain, that is a non valid public domain or TLD, like widgets.burrito

> In my opinion it's recommended to do with something that's not a public domain at all ...

The recommended practice, AFAIK, is to register a public domain for the purpose. See the recent HN discussion of .home.arpa for all the reasoning and arguments and counter-counter-counter-points.

Really large ISPs have even planned for the disaster-recovery scenario of a collapse of public DNS infrastructure, so their internal management network and hostnames are not related to the existing gTLD or ccTLD, or legacy TLD in any way. There is no need to involve ICANN-approved TLDs in your internal DNS infrastructure, particularly if you have management interfaces for a lot of things that are firewalled off or air gapped from ever touching the public internet.

What does ICANN have anything to do with this? If the global DNS system crashed and burned, you would be in exactly the same place as if you had invented a TLD as you have suggested. But, if that doesn't happen... And the way more likely outcome of your "made up TLD" becoming real happens instead, you're in a way worse position.

So far I've read you suggest .taco, .burrito, and .burritocorp as good TLDs to pick. This is terrible advice.

Purchase a public domain name from a real TLD - use it knowing it's yours, and never going to conflict.

I'm using made up words as placeholders like foo, bar, or anything else. Not suggesting you use your own tld of burrito. The point of using a nonsensical example is that your TLD choice for hostnames and rDNS in a management VRF can be entirely arbitrary, since it is not part of "the internet".

Typically the name would be something relevant to your needs, such as the name of the company, or AS number. I think what you don't get is that the public root name servers do not need to have anything to do with an entirely internal dns infrastructure.

Not suggesting icann is going to crash and burn either, but that "real" TLD relevance to what you do in rfc1918 IP space in a network that is not routed to the internet is minimal at best.

Bet you $5 that Google's actual internal dns for the oob, SNMP management, automated provisioning tools which control those 1e100 hosts is not 1e100, and is not a zonefile you can find cached anywhere public. They built their own internal dns for it. Have seen the same at two large CDNs. Their internal authoritaive DNS servers for their management IP space have no connection whatsoever to the public internet or to the lettered root nameservers.

> I'm using made up words as placeholders like foo, bar, or anything else. Not suggesting you use your own tld of burrito. The point of using a nonsensical example is that your TLD choice for hostnames and rDNS in a management VRF can be entirely arbitrary, since it is not part of "the internet".

1.1.1.1 wasn't part of the internet either, and, guess what it does today?...

> and is not a zonefile you can find cached anywhere public

You seem to be conflating owning a legitimate domain name for the purpose of internal use with making the DNS records from that domain's zone public. One does not imply the other.

Buy the domain, know you will never conflict with something, and you're done (bar renewal!).

It's quite amusing you are promoting the use made up TLD names for internal use but previously you were deriding others for doing the same with 1/8 IP space(pre-2010) for the exact same internal only isolated use case.

I'm trying to picture a co-worker telling the team they went ahead and put all the management interfaces in the .burrito domain in order to save the company $10 in domain registrar fees.

Especially in that disaster-recovery scenario, when you're figuring out how to combine the different namespaces that different disconnected fragments of the internet are using, you really don't want namespace collisions.

Namespaces are abstract things that exist outside of the realm of actual network connectivity, and enable you to plan for all kinds of hypotheticals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com