# Technical reason for using a domain name



## Deleted member 9563 (Jun 12, 2014)

Is there a technical reason for using a domain name? I notice everything I can find about servers says you must have one, but I think that is wrong because I can get to a server anywhere in the world just fine by using the IP. I realize some of the conveniences of a domain name, but to me there are other times when it doesn't serve any useful purpose that I can imagine. In fact, often the number is shorter than the name.

I realize this isn't FreeBSD specific and that there are other forums where I could ask this, but I trust the expertise here.


----------



## kpa (Jun 12, 2014)

Well you can get to some places with just the IP address but there are plenty of places that depend on virtual hosts in their web server configuration. If you connect to those using just the IP address you're most likely going to end up on a blank or error page. On top of that you can't be serious about using IP numbers for everything. DNS was invented for to solve exactly the problem of not having to know or care if a service is suddenly relocated to completely different IP address. DNS handles all that effortlessly and you never notice anything. In addition there are some load balancing and redundancy methods that depend on having multiple address records for the same DNS name. The internet as we know it now wouldn't have happened at all if the early internet that was in existence in late 80's had kept using just IP numbers for addresses, it would have failed miserably.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Jun 12, 2014)

Thanks for taking the time to answer. However, I think you misunderstood the question or that I didn't make it clear. The _usefulness_ of the DNS system is not relevant to my question and I'm certainly not suggesting that one use IP numbers for "everything". I'm wondering if one *has* to use a name in order to comply with some technical standard in order to not screw something up etc, etc. In other words, is there a _technical_ reason?

For example, I have a VPS in some far away place, and there is no reason why anybody else should be able to access it, though I don't care if they do. I haven't bothered to put a domain on it yet. DNS will solve no problem for me that I'm aware of. I can just give you a link (IPv6 works fine for that too) and you can go there as well. In my experience it is a perfectly useful server (currently HTTP and FTP), yet there is web page after web page out there that all tell me that I'm wrong. Why is that?

I should add that I'm aware of how to set up Apache and DNS can be helpful in doing some things, but it is not a given that one wants to do those things.


----------



## SirDice (Jun 12, 2014)

OJ said:
			
		

> I'm wondering if one *has* to use a name in order to comply with some technical standard in order to not screw something up etc, etc. In other words, is there a _technical_ reason?


None whatsoever. 



> For example, I have a VPS in some far away place, and there is no reason why anybody else should be able to access it, though I don't care if they do. I haven't bothered to put a domain on it yet. DNS will solve no problem for me that I'm aware of. I can just give you a link (IPv6 works fine for that too) and you can go there as well. In my experience it is a perfectly useful server (currently http and ftp), yet there is web page after web page out there that all tell me that I'm wrong. Why is that?


Why would it be wrong?


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jun 12, 2014)

There is nothing wrong with doing it that way and nothing will ever break except as @kpa pointed out. In fact, your modem, router and inter-network computers all work like that. For that matter, after DNS resolution, the whole internet works like that.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Jun 13, 2014)

Thanks for the responses. When I realized that I didn't have a domain name immediately available I thought I'd just not use one. I did a check on the net, and discovered that no one condoned this. I couldn't even find confirmation in the FreeBSD Handbook, though perhaps I missed it somehow. I'm actually not that green at doing this, but the overwhelming public opinion made me doubt what I thought to be true. That's why I posted this question here.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jun 13, 2014)

OJ said:
			
		

> the overwhelming public opinion made me doubt what I thought to be true.


That's one of the problems with public forums. Too many "facts" are opinion alone and the pressure to toe the company line is great.


----------



## bbzz (Jun 22, 2014)

There are some, one of more obvious is domain names allow multiple web sites to be served on web server using same IP. The domain name is used as a part in host http header.
Others include security, etc.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Jun 23, 2014)

Thanks @bbzz, but those seem to be things you _can_ do with a domain name, rather that things you _have_ to do.

But regarding security, since I raised this question I've come to think that eliminating WAN DNS might be a security improvement. I do note that a lot of hops on a traceroute don't have names and it's obvious why. I don't think names make sense for a lot of applications. In fact only for those you intend to be discoverable or want to broadcast or like you suggest, host on the same IP. For example, I might want to host a certain file or files on a different server from one running a web page, and there's no need to get that listed on name servers around the world.


----------



## bbzz (Jun 23, 2014)

Internet doesn't work without DNS services. Whether you say "must" or "should" or "may" are just semantics.

it's very convenient 
it's used as a security measure
it's allows for service transparency, allowing you to have diverse geographic locations with one domain name
name based (virtual) hosts which don't work without DNS
it allows ISPs to decouple service from IP address which allows high-availability, for example
Maybe in a parallel universe internet doesn't need DNS, but in this one is a must. Without DNS one would need another hack which would do all those thing I listed, as a large portion of internet would be unavailable.

Regards


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Jun 24, 2014)

bbzz said:
			
		

> Internet doesn't work without DNS services.


I manage to get it to work just fine. I guess our needs are different.


----------



## Melvyn (Jul 6, 2014)

bbzz said:
			
		

> Maybe in a parallel universe internet doesn't need DNS, but in this one is a must. Without DNS one would need another hack which would do all those thing I listed, as a large portion of internet would be unavailable.



Quite a list of questionable assertions that are totally irrelevant to the question.

As for relevance:
The one technical reason for having a domain name tied to your server, is sending mail into the world. The minimum requirements to get your daily runs into a gmail account currently are:

 spf record
matching reverse lookup when on IPv6
That gets you into the spam box. To get further, you need DKIM. I realize Google Mail isn't the standard, but there are some servers more stringent and some less.
HTTP doesn't require DNS. In fact, hostname based virtual hosts do not require a purchased domain name either, if it's purpose is internal. You can perfectly forward coolbox.local and hotbox.local to your server's IP and use hostname based virtual hosts, as long as you setup a local DNS server that claims authority.
SSH does some hostname verification tha'ts not fatal by default yet can be made fatal. So if the reverse of your IP address doesn't resolve, you may not get into another server from that server.
That should cover the basics.


----------



## SirDice (Jul 8, 2014)

bbzz said:
			
		

> Whether you say "must" or "should" or "may" are just semantics.


Not when it comes to internet technology. 

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt


----------



## kpa (Jul 8, 2014)

Melvyn said:
			
		

> bbzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're saying that HTTP doesn't require DNS. Well, it certainly does unless you want to force people to remember numeric IP addresses which nobody will do anymore even under gunpoint. If you meant that you don't need a DNS name for the end server where the connections get forwarded from the initial connection point (that absolutely needs to found in DNS!!!) then please state so clearly.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Jul 9, 2014)

I am grateful for everyone's comments here, and they are all interesting.

It is clear that people's minds have radically different wiring when it comes to using the internet. I write and host a fair number of web sites and have noticed that the domain name is not generally used for access, even though it can provide some level of branding. People just click on links or use Google which will get you directly there with only a hint of identity such as a content reference. The bottom line is that the actual domain name doesn't typically come into play when someone wishes to get to a web site. Since the advent of bookmarks and Google, nobody needs to remember anything any more.

That said, personal preferences in means of access wasn't intended as the topic here, but it is certainly interesting how some people can't resist focusing on that aspect. (Not just on this forum.) Perhaps I should start another thread about that, though this may not be the best forum for such study. However, I do admit that that curio is what caused me to ask the original question.


----------



## Oko (Jul 14, 2014)

OJ said:
			
		

> Is there a technical reason for using a domain name?


Sure. How are you going to run NIS or LDAP without at least Unbound resolver?


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Jul 14, 2014)

Thanks.  It certainly appears that there are quite a few services that require a domain name. Http doesn't seem to be one of those though. Here's a quick page as proof of concept: http://[2a00:1630:2:f00::fd9a:7f23]


----------

