[Standards] Re: IDNA text for rfc3920bis
mridul at sun.com
Mon Apr 16 16:35:33 UTC 2007
Matthias Wimmer wrote:
> Hi Peter!
> Peter Saint-Andre schrieb:
>>> What's wrong with using "romeo.localhost" and "juliet.localhost"
>>> instead of using "romeo" and "juliet"? These addresses would also
>>> conform RFC 2606.
>>> I've also changed the default configuration of jabberd14 before I
>>> released 1.6.0 to even have all internal-only addresses below the
>>> localhost pseudo-TLD. (e.g. "sessions.localhost", "xdbsql.localhost",
>>> "c2s.localhost" and that like).
>> Do such addresses work in, say, a distributed cluster?
> I don't really understand the question ... but maybe this is just
> because I can't see why they should not work. They are just standard
> addresses. The fact that "localhost" is in them does not mean that they
> have to be on the same host.
I think the query was because :
If you used only hostnames - then they get resolved to the default
domain : like peer1, peer2, etc would resolve to peer1.domain and work.
With peer1.localhost, unless you have resolution entries for these in
the dns, it would not work (and other than /etc/hosts style entries -
which are a pain to maintain across nodes).
For argument sake, we could envision that for high availability nodes
... use fully resolved hostnames.
More information about the Standards