Earlier quoted context omitted.
localhost would be a good name for a bar in SF.
I keep trying to go to this hip new bar called localhost, but somehow directions just lead me to drinking at home.
I lol'd
Internet Draft: Let 'localhost' be localhost
41–50 of 179 posts
Re: Internet Draft: Let 'localhost' be localhost
#42The domain "localhost.", and any names falling within ".localhost.", are known as "localhost names". Localhost names are special in the following ways […] Is this not implemented on macOS or am I just misunderstanding? ~ ping test.localhost ping: cannot resolve test.localhost: Unknown host ~ ping localhost.test ping: cannot resolve localhost.test: Unknown host
It would be rather surprising if a brand new draft RFC from a google employee were already implemented in macOS...
Yeah of course, sorry, I misread the document. I took that part as to describe the current state.
Re: Internet Draft: Let 'localhost' be localhost
#43The domain "localhost.", and any names falling within ".localhost.", are known as "localhost names". Localhost names are special in the following ways […] Is this not implemented on macOS or am I just misunderstanding? ~ ping test.localhost ping: cannot resolve test.localhost: Unknown host ~ ping localhost.test ping: cannot resolve localhost.test: Unknown host
As I understood it, that simply states that if any of those domains were implemented, they should loopback, as opposed to all domains containing "localhost" ARE implemented.
Thank you for the clarification!
Re: Internet Draft: Let 'localhost' be localhost
#44To be clear, this is not an RFC yet. It's not even adopted by a working group, although I hope it will be. Mods: can RFC be removed from the title? [Edit: thanks for updating the title!]
Thank you, we've replaced “RFC” with ”Internet Draft”.
Re: Internet Draft: Let 'localhost' be localhost
#45There was no RFC for localhost yet?! That's pretty surprising... That this RFC have any practical meaning? People didn't actually register localhost. domain, did they? Is there an actual line of code that this should change? Are they just trying to promote writing localhost instead of 127.0.0.1?
From the actual draft:
> First, the lack of confidence that "localhost" actually resolves to the loopback interface encourages application developers to hard-code IP addresses like "127.0.0.1" in order to obtain certainty regarding routing. This causes problems in the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 (see problem 8 in [draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis]).
>Second, HTTP user agents sometimes distinguish certain contexts as "secure"-enough to make certain features available. Given the certainty that "127.0.0.1" cannot be maliciously manipulated or monitored, [SECURE-CONTEXTS] treats it as such a context. Since "localhost" might not actually map to the loopback address, that document declines to give it the same treatment. This exclusion has (rightly) surprised some developers, and exacerbates the risks of hard-coded IP addresses by giving developers positive encouragement to use an explicit loopback address rather than a localhost name.
>This document hardens [RFC6761]'s recommendations regarding "localhost" by requiring that DNS resolution work the way that users assume: "localhost" is the loopback interface on the local host. Resolver APIs will resolve "localhost." and any names falling within ".localhost." to loopback addresses, and traffic to those hosts will never traverse a remote network.
Re: Internet Draft: Let 'localhost' be localhost
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think (?) I've ever made this typo. How many hits do you get? (I feel like "ocalhost", "locahost", or "localhos" would be more common typos.)
localhost would be a good name for a bar in SF.
It's a tech community center in Philadelphia: http://localhostphilly.com/
Re: Internet Draft: Let 'localhost' be localhost
#47Does this mean that an entry in /etc/hosts assigning ip to localhost will be ignored?
Re: Internet Draft: Let 'localhost' be localhost
#48First, the lack of confidence that "localhost" actually resolves to the loopback interface encourages application developers to hard-code IP addresses like "127.0.0.1" in order to obtain certainty regarding routing. This causes problems in the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 (see problem 8 in [draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis]). That does remind me of the times I was dealing with weird connection issues in some critical s…
The weirdest was a co-worker who had some simple webserver, which was listening on only IPv4 or IPv6 (but not both). When he went to "localhost" on Firefox it used IPv4 and he was able to see it. On Chrome "localhost" was IPv6 (or the other way around), and he got "Could not connect" error. It confused him no end how this simple web server worked on FF but not Chrome. :)
Re: Internet Draft: Let 'localhost' be localhost
#49First, the lack of confidence that "localhost" actually resolves to the loopback interface encourages application developers to hard-code IP addresses like "127.0.0.1" in order to obtain certainty regarding routing. This causes problems in the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 (see problem 8 in [draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis]). That does remind me of the times I was dealing with weird connection issues in some critical s…
I always have local.my company.com DNS that resolves to 127.0.0.1. I can get a valid cert that way too.
Re: Internet Draft: Let 'localhost' be localhost
#50First, the lack of confidence that "localhost" actually resolves to the loopback interface encourages application developers to hard-code IP addresses like "127.0.0.1" in order to obtain certainty regarding routing. This causes problems in the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 (see problem 8 in [draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis]). That does remind me of the times I was dealing with weird connection issues in some critical s…
I always have local.my company.com DNS that resolves to 127.0.0.1. I can get a valid cert that way too.