That's kind of awesome!
-
That's kind of awesome! I have a bunch of home lab stuff, but have been putting off buying a domain (I was a broke college student when I started my lab and half the point was avoiding recurring costs- plus I already run the DNS, as far as the WAN is concerned, I have whatever domain I want). My loose plan was to stand up a certificate authority and push the root public key out with active directory, but being able to certify things against Let's Encrypt might make things significantly easier.
-
That's kind of awesome! I have a bunch of home lab stuff, but have been putting off buying a domain (I was a broke college student when I started my lab and half the point was avoiding recurring costs- plus I already run the DNS, as far as the WAN is concerned, I have whatever domain I want). My loose plan was to stand up a certificate authority and push the root public key out with active directory, but being able to certify things against Let's Encrypt might make things significantly easier.
I use a domain, but for homelab I eventually switched to my own internal CA.
Instead of having to do
service.domain.tldit's nice to doservice.lan. -
I use a domain, but for homelab I eventually switched to my own internal CA.
Instead of having to do
service.domain.tldit's nice to doservice.lan.Any good instructions you would recommend for doing this?
-
Any good instructions you would recommend for doing this?
use the official home.arpa as specified in RFC 8375
-
use the official home.arpa as specified in RFC 8375
No thanks. I get some people agreed to this, but I'm going to continue to use
.lan, like so many others. If they ever register.lanfor public use, there will be a lot of people pissed off.IMO, the only reason not to assign a top-level domain in the RFC is so that some company can make money on it. The authors were from Cisco and Nominum, a DNS company purchased by Akamai, but that doesnt appear to be the reason why.
.homeand.homenetwere proposed, but this is from the mailing list:- we cannot be sure that using .home is consistent with the existing (ab)use
- ICANN is in receipt of about a dozen applications for ".home", and some of those applicants no doubt have deeper pockets than the IETF does should they decide to litigate
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/PWl6CANKKAeeMs1kgBP5YPtiCWg/
So, corporate fear.
-
No thanks. I get some people agreed to this, but I'm going to continue to use
.lan, like so many others. If they ever register.lanfor public use, there will be a lot of people pissed off.IMO, the only reason not to assign a top-level domain in the RFC is so that some company can make money on it. The authors were from Cisco and Nominum, a DNS company purchased by Akamai, but that doesnt appear to be the reason why.
.homeand.homenetwere proposed, but this is from the mailing list:- we cannot be sure that using .home is consistent with the existing (ab)use
- ICANN is in receipt of about a dozen applications for ".home", and some of those applicants no doubt have deeper pockets than the IETF does should they decide to litigate
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/PWl6CANKKAeeMs1kgBP5YPtiCWg/
So, corporate fear.
But
home.arpa’s top-level domain is.arpa? -
But
home.arpa’s top-level domain is.arpa?I'm not sure I follow the question. All of the TLD
*.arpais not reserved for private use, only*.home.arpa. So all your internal services are required to be a sub domain. -
I'm not sure I follow the question. All of the TLD
*.arpais not reserved for private use, only*.home.arpa. So all your internal services are required to be a sub domain.Sounds like you followed.
Now that I’m moving goalposts, why not use
.home.arpasubdomains? -
Sounds like you followed.
Now that I’m moving goalposts, why not use
.home.arpasubdomains?Instead of having to do
service.domain.tldit's nice to doservice.lan.