This being on the front page at the same time as the coffee machine sending 1TB of data, and the icann application being submitted by Coffee Danger LLC is just beautiful
While you're not wrong, I suspect that .lan sees more real world usage than .local
It may not be an official standard, but it does have some weight as a de-facto standard.
I've tried briefly to try and find some numbers to back that up, but can't find much beyond apple's bonjour vs consumer routers - although I've seen companies with AD domains using .lan as well. (Although, I've also seen companies using 1.0.0.0/8 for their internal addressing...)
it definitely gets used, and i hope that the application is denied, but i also hope this is another wake up call for people that pick unreserved domains.
Wake up to what? The fact ICANN have failed in their governance responsibilities by not encoding a widely used defacto private namespace into the reserved namespace RFC and considering delegating it publicly?
whether you consider this a failure of ICANN or not is completely beside the point.
if you choose to use an unreserved domain, you are choosing to accept the risk of something like this happening. take ownership of your choices. "but other people use it" is not a great defense.
It's a default on OpenWRT and Ubiquiti devices. I don't think consumers should be blamed nor suffer because they didn't know their pricey Ubiquiti router was using a de facto but not officially reserved TLD. you can blame Ubiquiti i guess, but once upon a time there were no reserved TLDs and it was the job of ICANN to deny new ones that had widespread understanding not to be internet routable, so it's not like there's no precedent for Ubiquiti's behavior either.
Bear in mind the advice on these things changes over time, and it's possible that the situation in the past may not have been as clear cut.
As an example, at one point in the past (I think in the 90's?), Microsoft recommended using .local for AD domains, whereas now they explicitly recommend against it.
I just bought mysefl a '.casa' domain, got wildcard cert for it from lets encrypt and haven't bothered with any of these. Downside, if internet goes down resolver stops, but thats why I have local NS mirror and all DNS queries go through my resolver.
Another downside is that some devices these days use their own encrypted DNS resolver and fall back to local DNS only for non-public TLDs. Not sure if that will continue working then as expected if your internet connection goes down.
I've been bitten by this with my home router which uses <device>.fritz.box when somebody registered fritz.box.
You can buy a cheap domain to make sure no one else uses it and just roll it on your lan. Throw some DNS ACME challenges and you have valid certificates too.
I do it for the LE certificate. But "cheap" is subjective. Domain registration and management should not be as expensive as it is. Nothing the registrar or registry does could be worth $8/10/200 a year with guaranteed 5-10% price increases every year. It is a grift.
Beside the fact that was standard or not it made sense to use .lan domain for local devices, and a lot of router sold were configured with that domain for resolving local network hosts.
To me is a very bad idea to implement this proposal, it should instead be standardized and reserved for internal usage as a fix. There were even RFC like https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6762/#appendix-G that suggested their usage for local devices in a network.
What is the point of selling the .lan domain, except for making money at the expense of a security risk for millions of networks that already use that domain for internal hosts?
BTW to me there was never any sense to add new TLD domain despite country code. They decided to render internet less secure, by giving scammers infinite TLD to register they scam domain like "apple.lan", with the sole purpose of making for them easy money.
