| |||||||||||||
Fishy businessFishy businessPosted Mar 8, 2010 15:58 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (subscriber, #755)In reply to: Fishy business by jeremiah Parent article: Fishy business
Speaking as an author of published research on this topic, Jeremiah (RFC 2100, to be precise), let me tell you that assigning to a machine a role based name is pretty much the Worst Imaginable Idea; any number of system administration textbooks (including the Purple Book and TPOSANA) can explain to you why in more detail than I have the time for right now.
You're perfectly welcome -- and in fact, encouraged -- to assign *DNS aliases* to them that are function/role based, but don't name the *machines* that.
Really.
Your replacement will thank you. ;-)
(Log in to post comments)
Fishy business Posted Mar 8, 2010 18:28 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
In a past job, I had the great pleasure of sending the sysadmins a copy of
RFC2100 with the addition 'Learn, guys', when they decided, overnight, to rename all our development systems from names like neptune and tabernacle to nice memorable names like, if I can reconstruct one of them, 'cddldsbgcorplr42-1' which encoded not just that this was a development machine but the current name of the company and division and the machine's *rack number* and location on its rack, with the declared intention of changing this name whenever the company or division changed names or the machine was reracked. (This was an improvement over their previous edict, which was that all machines should be named after their IP address. Even those getting their addresses from DHCP.)
(despite that name: this machine was not in Utah. 'lds' meant 'London
I found out later that said sysadmins didn't know what CNAMEs were. So
|
|||||||||||||