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.
  • AliasVortex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    2 months ago

    That’s kind of awesome! I have a bunch of home lab stuff, but have been putting off buying a domain (I was a broke college student when I started my lab and half the point was avoiding recurring costs- plus I already run the DNS, as far as the WAN is concerned, I have whatever domain I want). My loose plan was to stand up a certificate authority and push the root public key out with active directory, but being able to certify things against Let’s Encrypt might make things significantly easier.

    • oasis@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      Setting up a root and a immediate CA is significantly more fun though ;) It’s also teaches you more about PKI which is a good skill to have.

    • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      I use a domain, but for homelab I eventually switched to my own internal CA.

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

          • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

              • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Sounds like you followed.

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

    • SteveTech@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      With dynamic DNS? Yeah it always has, as long as you can host a http server.

      With a dynamic IP? It should do, the certs are only valid for 6 days for that reason.

    • Melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I don’t see how? Normal HTTP/TLS validation would still apply so you’d need port forwarding. You can’t host anything on the CGNAT IP so you can’t pass validation and they won’t issue you a cert.

        • deadcade@lemmy.deadca.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          You don’t get control of the incoming port that way. For LetsEncrypt to issue a certificate primarily intended for HTTPS, they will check that the HTTP server on that IP is owned by the requesting party. That has to live on port 80, which you can’t forward on CGNAT.