The discussion centers on an ICANN application to create a global .lan gTLD and the risks commenters say that would pose to existing internal-network usage. Many pointed out that OpenWrt, consumer routers, Pi-hole setups and other local DNS practices already use .lan, and warned of name-collision leaks to upstream resolvers, plaintext traffic exposure, and past bugs in dnsmasq. Several commenters invoked RFCs and past precedents - RFC 8375 (.home.arpa) and RFC 6762 (.local) are cited as safer reserved alternatives - and noted that an ICANN Name Collision Risk Management assessment or objections could block delegation, though others complained about the cost and complexity of filing objections. Some referenced the .dev controversy as proof that applicants can abuse promises or cause real-world disruption.
Opinion divides on responsibility and remedies. Many argued ICANN or the applicant is being greedy and reckless for monetizing a culturally entrenched internal name, while others said operators who used unreserved TLDs should have expected this risk and should migrate. Practical suggestions from commenters included converting to .internal or home.arpa, using subdomain.company.com, keeping .lan on RPZ blocklists, deploying software fixes, or hoping the collision framework prevents delegation. A few remarks were dismissive or humorous, and some expressed broader skepticism about the value of creating more gTLDs.
Summary generated by AI from the linked article. hn.today is not affiliated with Hacker News or Y Combinator.