cultural reviewer and dabbler in stylistic premonitions

  • 355 Posts
  • 798 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 17th, 2022

help-circle
  • The Pi is definitely running Avahi and spamming multicast, when it attempts to resolve .local, it sends out multicast and unicast simultaneously, even with freshly flushed DNS cache.

    I owe you an apology - I see now that my avahi systems are in fact also sending unicast SOA? local. when I resolve a .local name, and presumably if my recursor told them it was responsible for it instead of NXDomain then I would resolve names through it.

    I was pretty sure that it doesn’t do that, but before telling you that it doesn’t I actually did a test and ran tcpdump -ni any port 53 or port 5353 while resolving some .local names. i even noticed that there was that SOA query being sent to and from localhost (to systemd-resolved) but I saw no answer to it and figured that systemd-resolved was the thing silently ignoring that TLD. But: it turns out that the system I tested on has its systemd-resolved configured for DNSOverTLS so I wasn’t seeing those SOA queries being sent on to the recursor on a different port 🤦

    Sorry!

    It does seem to me like a regrettable choice of the RFC authors to allow both, though, as it is easy to accidentally have a situation where the recursor and mDNS return different answers which would lead to inconsistent results when querying both in parallel.


  • why bother opening a pathway in the first place

    i’ve never had an IG account myself, but i think your mistake is in assuming that someone accepting your follow request on a restricted IG account is an indicator of desire for chatting with strangers. accepting your follow request might just mean they glanced at your profile and assessed that you aren’t a spammer or bot, not that they want to chat with you.

    perhaps just need to find out somewhere in the real world where I could bond more easily with real people?

    for sure that is a good idea 😂

    but there are also many places online where it is much more reasonable to assume people are interested in chatting with strangers.



  • Yes. It was even the suggested practice at one time:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.local

    Cool, I didn’t know that. But the article also says they recommend against it now. I see the “Microsoft recommendations” section of the wikipedia article indicates they changed their mind on this several times.

    On the other hand almost nothing uses mDNS.

    In my experience mDNS seems ubiquitous; almost every network connected device I’ve seen in the last couple decades has it enabled by default.

    Fucking bootcampers istg I’m so glad I don’t have to work with y’all and only interact when you deliver my fucking takeaway.

    Huh? What are “bootcampers”? It used to refer to people running windows on intel macs (because apple’s boot loader to allow that was called BootCamp), but that wouldn’t make any sense in this context. Unless you are having your food delivered by people who run Windows on old Apple hardware? 🤔

    Implementers MAY choose to look up such names concurrently via other mechanisms (e.g., Unicast DNS) and coalesce the results in some fashion

    So actually the RFC does not limit whatsoever the resolution of .local domains to mDNS. Implementers, apart from Android do indeed always do look up via both unicast and multicast (if not disabled). Only android limits this to multicast-only.

    I see. Sorry I missed that part of the RFC.

    But, FYI, it is really not only Android that doesn’t send unicast queries for .local names; GNU/Linux distributions running avahi (eg, the distros most people use) also don’t. I don’t have a mac or iphone nearby to confirm but I would assume they are probably resolving .local exclusively via mDNS too. edit: this “Apple devices might not open your internal network’s ‘.local’ domain” support article indicates my assumption is probably correct.

    Also, please don’t tell people to KYS :(











  • Having some distrust in Wikipedia is healthy; you certainly shouldn’t take it as the final word about facts you’re depending on the accuracy of. But, it is very often a good starting point for learning about a new subject.

    Spending a minute or two reading that “source code” article (or another version of it which is likely available in your first language) would give you a much better understanding of the concept of source code (which is a prerequisite for understanding what “closed source” means) than any of the answers in this thread so far.







  • This is an excerpt of OP’s post in question:

    Last android piece of garbage I buy. Is there even a single good reason it restricts .local, as is commonly used for local domains in LAN DNS to some hellish nonsense no one’s ever used called multicast DNS?

    Is .local actually “commonly used for local domains in LAN DNS” or did you just see .local somewhere else (probably using mDNS) and decide to cargo cult it? I’ve never seen someone use it outside the context of zero-configuration networking.

    fyi, besides Android, most Linux distros also ship with mDNS enabled by default, as do all Apple operating systems since the feature was first introduced in an update to Mac OS 9 in 2001. It’s mostly just Windows that doesn’t.

    And before someone says “uhmm but m-muh RFC says so” - no. That RFC only suggests that some people MAY implement it as such, which yeah, sucks, because the RFC if it did it’s job right should forbid it altogether […]

    Which RFC says that? I just checked, and RFC6762 (Multicast DNS) says:

    This document specifies that the DNS top-level domain “.local.” is a special domain with special semantics, namely that any fully qualified name ending in “.local.” is link-local, and names within this domain are meaningful only on the link where they originate. This is analogous to IPv4 addresses in the 169.254/16 prefix or IPv6 addresses in the FE80::/10 prefix, which are link-local and meaningful only on the link where they originate.

    Any DNS query for a name ending with “.local.” MUST be sent to the mDNS IPv4 link-local multicast address 224.0.0.251 (or its IPv6 equivalent FF02::FB).

    Also, as per (the immediately prior) RFC6761 (“Special-Use Domain Names”), RFC6762 explicitly adds .local to the IANA registry of special-use domain names.

    HTH!