[Proposal] Use .localhost for TLD in local development

[yordis]

Use .localhost for TLD in local developmen

• State: Draft
• Created:
• Tags:

Context

Bikeshedding about TLD for local development

Resolution

• You MUST use .localhost for local development DNS resolution

Links

• https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2606#section-2
• https://www.pluralsight.com/blog/software-development/choose-internal-top-level-domain-name

[yordis]

From https://www.reddit.com/r/homelab/comments/vlmzc0/comment/idwa8ct/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Best practice is to get a registered domain and then use a subdomain for AD. You can get some very cheap domain names for something like $8 a year.

The AD domain should then look like:

ad.domain.com or internal.domain.com

Using .local has been discouraged since Server 2003 (with the exception of Small Business Server).

Having a registered domain name guarantees unique names.

.local can interfere with apple services like Bonjour which uses .local on a local subnet without DNS lookup.

I also have read that it can interfere with autodiscovery in AD.

Sure, you can probably get by using .local... But if you want to do it right, .local is a bad idea.

Best practice is to get a registered domain and then use a subdomain for AD

Doesn't seem like a best practice for all, not for sensitive environments at least. The domain registrar adds to the chain of trust, which should be kept as minimal as possible. Also, some projects may have super long domain names, so they might be cumbersome to use.

I propose disabling Internet access to development environments. The access to package managers may be performed in a way similar to Qubes OS Updates Proxy.

[yordis]

@1xX69 I dont have much strong opinions here to be honest, almost my entire programming career I have been using localhost 🙈
My comment was copied past from the blog post, so don't take them as mine.