Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Internet Draft: Let 'localhost' be localhost

tools.ietf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 179 posts

Re: Internet Draft: Let 'localhost' be localhost

#2

Post by nhance »

If this doesn't happen or takes too long, there's always lacolhost.com and *.lacolhost.com. I own this domain, have registered it out until 2026 and vow that the domain and all subdomains will always redirect to localhost.

It's easy to type and easy to remember and should always do a good job of expressing intent of usage.

Re: Internet Draft: Let 'localhost' be localhost

#3

Post by [deleted] »

nhance wrote: post #2

If this doesn't happen or takes too long, there's always lacolhost.com and *.lacolhost.com. I own this domain, have registered it out until 2026 and vow that the domain and all subdomains will always redirect to localhost. It's easy to type and easy to remember and should always do a good job of expressing intent of usage.

[deleted]

Re: Internet Draft: Let 'localhost' be localhost

#4

Post by schoen »

nhance wrote: post #2

If this doesn't happen or takes too long, there's always lacolhost.com and *.lacolhost.com. I own this domain, have registered it out until 2026 and vow that the domain and all subdomains will always redirect to localhost. It's easy to type and easy to remember and should always do a good job of expressing intent of usage.

I don't think that quite fits into the security model of many of the purposes for which people use localhost, as they often want to avoid all external dependencies (including Internet access!) and all external trust.

If they do use your domain name then they have to trust that nobody has subsequently seized the name in court, nobody has hacked or DDOSed your nameservers, there's not an interruption of network connectivity between them and your servers, and that the ISPs forwarding the DNS queries didn't substitute a different response for the one you intended to return (since currently your leaf records aren't DNSSEC-signed).

Re: Internet Draft: Let 'localhost' be localhost

#5

Post by mholt »

nhance wrote: post #2

If this doesn't happen or takes too long, there's always lacolhost.com and *.lacolhost.com. I own this domain, have registered it out until 2026 and vow that the domain and all subdomains will always redirect to localhost. It's easy to type and easy to remember and should always do a good job of expressing intent of usage.

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.)

Re: Internet Draft: Let 'localhost' be localhost

#6

Post by dmitrygr »

nhance wrote: post #2

If this doesn't happen or takes too long, there's always lacolhost.com and *.lacolhost.com. I own this domain, have registered it out until 2026 and vow that the domain and all subdomains will always redirect to localhost. It's easy to type and easy to remember and should always do a good job of expressing intent of usage.

The issue they are trying to solve is that the DNS request might be sent somewhere at all (and thus manipulated). So your solution doesn't address that (as it guarantees a request is sent)

Re: Internet Draft: Let 'localhost' be localhost

#8

Post by nhance »

mholt wrote: post #5
nhance wrote: post #2

If this doesn't happen or takes too long, there's always lacolhost.com and *.lacolhost.com. I own this domain, have registered it out until 2026 and vow that the domain and all subdomains will always redirect to localhost. It's easy to type and easy to remember and should always do a good job of expressing intent of usage.

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.)

I have no clue, it's all handled by the registrar's DNS. I know when it last expired I was getting a good number of emails from people begging for it to come back asap.

The other commentators here are right, it won't solve a good number of the issues in this proposal, but works well if you need something for developing against subdomains.

Post reply on HN