[nycbug-talk] Sanity check on new naming scheme
mikel.king at olivent.com
Wed Apr 7 13:30:20 EDT 2010
On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Matt Juszczak wrote:
> Hi folks,
> I'm currently in the middle of a systems and network overhaul that's
> pretty large and spans multiple data centers.
> I'm working on developing standards, which include all servers being
> maintained by local puppet servers (one at each data center with one
> fail over), centralized authentication/sudo/authorization with LDAP
> (a few slaves at each data center with one primary LDAP server in
> one data center that all writes go to), centralized syslog (one
> server at each DC), and standard DNS (external .net and
> internal .internal).
> I just wanted to sanity check my thoughts on a DNS naming scheme.
> It seems like putting the description of the box (such as db-
> blah-01) in the name isn't what we're looking to do, and we're also
> trying to avoid generic names (server14, server15, etc.).
> What I think we've decided on is something like this:
> <server name>.<data center ID>.domain.net -> public IP
> <server name>.<data center ID>.domain.internal -> Local IP
> For example:
> Since we probably wouldn't choose to re-use server names, we would do:
> as a CNAME to the hostname of the box, bob.nyc01.domain.net.
> domain.net would only be used for network infrastructure and for
> nothing else, so there won't be collisions.
> As for actual functionality of boxes, we were thinking of doing
> blah.db.domain.net -> bob.nyc01.domain.net
> In the past, I've had different interfaces on boxes, and have added
> a subdomain to say whether the DNS entry points to the primary IP of
> the box (m for machine), or a service on the box (s for service).
> Not sure if this is something we should do.
> Any opinions? Can anyone else let me know what kind of flexible
> scheme they use?
I've used many different naming schemes over the years, but this all
sounds good to me.
By any chance have you ever read http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1178.html ?
More information about the talk