[nycbug-talk] Sanity check on new naming scheme

Francisco Reyes lists at stringsutils.com
Wed Apr 7 12:15:49 EDT 2010

Matt Juszczak writes:

> As for actual functionality of boxes, we were thinking of doing CNAMEs:
> blah.db.domain.net -> bob.nyc01.domain.net

Any reason you don't use functionality as part of the name?
Your naming schemse seems sane/sound.

Where I work one thing that was done, before I started, which I like is to 
use block of addresses for functionality.
So we would have something like
smtp servers .31 to .39
dbs 101 to 109
web 71 to 79

That way regardless of name you know by the IP the type of machine.

We use functionality so we would have web1, web2, db1, db2, etc..

> 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 

What do you mean by "a service on a box"?

If VLANs are integral part of your network that may be something else to 
consider either when assigning internal IPs or on the name.

VMs or Jails?
Where I work we are going to do a VMware deployment soon and I am going to 
try and have all the VMs on their own subnet or on their own blocks. Also on 
our diagrams we color VMs a different color from physical machines.

More information about the talk mailing list