this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2025
486 points (99.2% liked)

Selfhosted

60253 readers
627 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
ayyy@sh.itjust.works
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world
486
Let’s Encrypt Begins Supporting IP Address Certificates (linuxiac.com)
submitted 11 months ago by KarnaSubarna@lemmy.ml to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
63 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Who benefits from this? Even though Let’s Encrypt stresses that most site operators will do fine sticking with ordinary domain certificates, there are still scenarios where a numeric identifier is the only practical choice:

Infrastructure services such as DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH) – where clients may pin a literal IP address for performance or censorship-evasion reasons.
IoT and home-lab devices – think network-attached storage boxes, for example, living behind static WAN addresses.
Ephemeral cloud workloads – short-lived back-end servers that spin up with public IPs faster than DNS records can propagate.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] eneff@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

use the official home.arpa as specified in RFC 8375

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No thanks. I get some people agreed to this, but I'm going to continue to use .lan, like so many others. If they ever register .lan for public use, there will be a lot of people pissed off.

IMO, the only reason not to assign a top-level domain in the RFC is so that some company can make money on it. The authors were from Cisco and Nominum, a DNS company purchased by Akamai, but that doesnt appear to be the reason why. .home and .homenet were proposed, but this is from the mailing list:

  1. we cannot be sure that using .home is consistent with the existing (ab)use
  2. ICANN is in receipt of about a dozen applications for ".home", and some of those applicants no doubt have deeper pockets than the IETF does should they decide to litigate

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/PWl6CANKKAeeMs1kgBP5YPtiCWg/

So, corporate fear.

[–] lars@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

But home.arpa’s top-level domain is .arpa?

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure I follow the question. All of the TLD *.arpa is not reserved for private use, only *.home.arpa. So all your internal services are required to be a sub domain.

[–] lars@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like you followed.

Now that I’m moving goalposts, why not use .home.arpa subdomains?

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Instead of having to do service.domain.tld it's nice to do service.lan.

[–] lars@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago

Oops. :)