[nycbug-talk] Sanity check on new naming scheme

[mikel king]

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:
>
> bob.nyc01.domain.net
> bob.nyc01.domain.internal
>
>
> Since we probably wouldn't choose to re-use server names, we would do:
>
> bob.domain.net
>
> 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  
> CNAMEs:
>
> 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?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt

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 ?

Cheers,
Mikel King