And another .local

On July 22, 2008, in news, by

Canadian IT Professionals : Another .LOCAL post – SBS 2008, EBS 2008:

I wish that we could be a little be more understanding of the marketplace that SBS faces.  The reality is not everyone is as talented as Mitch. 

Yes there is an answerfile tool that will indeed allow the uber var/vap to name whatever he wants that server to be.  As a var/vap many like that answer file tool as they recommend filling it out, printing it out, having the customer sign off to document how they want the server to be named so that there are no misunderstandings.

But it can be a bit tiring when there are threats to our DNS structure and we’re still arguing over .com versus .local as a “best practice” how many years later

The option is indeed there.  If a var/vap cannot read the documentation on how to do this, then maybe they shouldn’t be setting up a server.

Yes that’s very harsh, I know, but I’m also getting a bit tired of this near religious arguments that bubble up over this topic.  In the first release of SBS 2008 beta there was no option at all to do anything but .internal.  So the var/vap community/beta testers went “whoa” and thus the win here is that there’s the answer file mechanism that gives Mitch exactly what he wants to do.  In addition, you can tailor it as a confirmation tool.  How many var/vaps have stupidly misspelled the Firm name wrong and have asked “can I rename the domain now” and we go … uh…no, flatten it and start over.  Thus the answer file tool will prevent you from those boneheaded fat fingering misspellings that all of us have done a time or two.  If you want .com, do it.  If you want .local, do it.  But gang, the reality is unfortunately that there’s a lot of servers that aren’t set up well and the customer suffers. 

At the end of the day the design goals for a Small Business Server is not that it be set up for the Var/Vap, nor for the Dell Marketplace, but that it be set up in a manner that whether it’s a Var/Vap set up server or a Dell OEM model that the customer at least gets a fighting chance of a decently set up server.

So Mitch, name the server whatever you want, but I think all of us that argue over this .local and .com need to all just get over it and get on with building servers in the manner that we prefer.


6 Responses to And another .local

  1. Phil says:

    Susan, whilst this seems like a waste of time, its a critical topic for future growth as Mitch eludes to. If people do not understand in depth the reasons for .local vs some TLD, then they can potentially put the brakes on peoples SBS\EBS sites.

    If you are so bored of this topic, why dont you do an in-depth post on .local vs TLD? Have you ever had to deploy OCS? You should try doing this in a domain whose SIP URI’s doesn’t match the FQDN. All things are possible and I have gotten many of these working, but I can tell you that if the average Joe can’t figure out .local vs TLD, then they will have no hope on OCS in a complex environment.

    This is just one example of where poor DNS planning can bite you, so I suggest that you either post relevant information on this, or stop shooting down people who may actually have a valid point.

  2. bradley says:

    I have deployed LCS/OCS in a .local arrangement with an external .com

    The point of my post is that SBS already allows for this. Why are we arguing that it’s not allowing it when it does.

    The average SBS network will never deploy OCS.

  3. Phil says:

    I don’t believe the argument is that .local is the only choice, well, if it was, then I apologise for missing the point =)) I believe the argument is and should be, for SBS’ers and soon to be EBS’ers, why use .local when you CAN use a TLD which will future proof you and make your life a LOT more easier down the track.

  4. bradley says:

    “Ok, I exaggerate on that one but let’s be honest… who does it hurt to give us the option of using a TLD (Top Level Domain) if we choose to?”

    SBS’s install does.
    It’s called the answer file tool. If you need it use it.

  5. Craig says:

    It’ll be interesting if ICANN allows .local as a registered TLD should the latest relaxation of rules go through.

    I’ve always advocated as it *logically makes sense*. The policy works for customers who outgrow SBS, especially since SBS 2000 and SBS 4.5 had 50-user limits.

    Yes, I am that old…

  6. Jeff Loucks says:

    I read Mitch’s post. I have heard the arguement. At the present time there is not one advantage to using .com and a ton of advantages to using .something. I have to admit I confiugre pretty sophisticated Multi-Hosting environments where DNS can get complicated but that is not a usual SBS environment.

    I predicted that ICANN would blow out the name space for TLDs but I am not sure I chose a significantly unique TLD to avoid possible conflicts. It could be interesting to see what happens over time.

    It might be that companies will have to use purchased names in the future and from that perspective the future proofing arguement may gain value. But I think rather than predict we will be forced into purchased names, that standards will form such as 192.168.x.x IPv4 addresses and the other private ranges did in the private space. From that perspective, .local might be reserved. In fact, if I were Microsoft, I would be working to this end.

    I don’t think it is wrong to bring educated comments into the public forum, I just crave a little substance to them so that we can learn what it is that people think is so futureless of using .local . Having said that there is the potential that a competitor to SBS may snap up .local and start directing resource traffic to malicious content. So there is a need for some concern here.

    So what if sbs.local went to Smart move for Novell maybe?

    Let’s just try to get more substance where people actually talk about real issues. The TLD comment was pretty good.