[112870] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: REVERSE DNS Practices.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew F. Ringel)
Tue Mar 24 11:09:16 2009
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:07:08 -0400
From: "Matthew F. Ringel" <ringel@net.tufts.edu>
To: Mark Tinka <mtinka@globaltransit.net>
In-Reply-To: <200903221030.12564.mtinka@globaltransit.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:30:07AM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Saturday 21 March 2009 06:38:55 pm bruce@yoafrica.com
> wrote:
>
> > Slighty related...
> >
> > Can people please post their recommended reverse dns
> > naming conventions for a small ISP with growth and
> > scalability in mind. I already have one drawn up, but I
> > would like to contrast and compare :D
>
> As regards core infrastructure, I posted the below on this
> list a while back, not sure if it'll help.
>
> http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg01341.html
>
Similarly, I did a presentation on this a while ago. This may be of
some use.
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog31/abstracts.php?pt=NjExJm5hbm9nMzE=&nm=nanog31
(also: http://tinyurl.com/cuqv5e )
The details of the presentation are more geared to a multi-campus
enterprise network (i.e. a university), but the two larger lessons
that came out of moving the university over to a more standard naming
scheme were:
Derivability: Being able to synthesize the name with a few pieces of
data makes naming and debugging easier.
Longer is okay: Barring software limitations on name length, a longer
name is not a problem if a person knows that they're going to get it
right on the first try. We used CNAMEs if we wanted abbreviations.
YMMV
....Matt
