cultural reviewer and dabbler in stylistic premonitions

  • 357 Posts
  • 797 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 17th, 2022

help-circle
  • This is an excerpt of the post in question:

    Last android piece of garbage I buy. Is there even a single good reason it restricts .local, as is commonly used for local domains in LAN DNS to some hellish nonsense no one’s ever used called multicast DNS?

    fyi, OP, most Linux distros ship with mDNS enabled by default, as do all Apple operating systems since the feature was first introduced in an update to Mac OS 9 in 2001.

    And before someone says “uhmm but m-muh RFC says so” - no. That RFC only suggests that some people MAY implement it as such, which yeah, sucks, because the RFC if it did it’s job right should forbid it altogether […]

    Which RFC says that? I just checked, and RFC6762 (Multicast DNS) says:

    This document specifies that the DNS top-level domain “.local.” is a special domain with special semantics, namely that any fully qualified name ending in “.local.” is link-local, and names within this domain are meaningful only on the link where they originate. This is analogous to IPv4 addresses in the 169.254/16 prefix or IPv6 addresses in the FE80::/10 prefix, which are link-local and meaningful only on the link where they originate.

    Any DNS query for a name ending with “.local.” MUST be sent to the mDNS IPv4 link-local multicast address 224.0.0.251 (or its IPv6 equivalent FF02::FB).

    As per (the immediately prior) RFC6761 (“Special-Use Domain Names”), RFC6762 explicitly adds .local to the IANA registry of special-use domain names.

    HTH!







  • there is no provider on the planet that can freeze state of RAM in a way that would be useful for this

    You are very mistaken, this is a well-supported feature in most modern virtualization environments.

    Here are XenServer docs for it. And here is VMWare’s “high-frequency” snapshots page.

    Sometimes, law enforcement authorities only need to contact cloud provider A when they have a warrant for (or, perhaps, no warrant but a mere request for) data about some user C who is indirectly using A via some cloud-hosted online service B.

    A(mazon) will dutifully deliver to the authorities snapshots of all of B’s VMs, and then it is up to them if they limit themselves to looking for data about C… while the staff of company B can honestly say they have not received any requests from law enforcement. (sorry my best source on this at the moment is sadly trust me bro; I’ve heard from an AWS employee that the above scenario really actually does happen.)










  • “Sorry, I got to return this video”

    2004 is when the Blockbuster video rental chain was at its peak (cite), and VHS was still in wide use at the time having only been surpassed by DVD rentals a year earlier. Speed dial was also still a thing then, payphones still exist today, and, although complaints were filed against Bill Cosby much earlier the public wasn’t widely aware of them until 2014.

    How about “John Kerry is the candidate who can prevent a second Bush term” ?