Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

discuss - Re: [opennic-discuss] Tier2 naming scheme...

discuss AT

Subject: Discuss mailing list

List archive

Re: [opennic-discuss] Tier2 naming scheme...

Chronological Thread 
  • From: Zach Gibbens <infocop411 AT>
  • To: discuss AT
  • Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] Tier2 naming scheme...
  • Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:39:48 -0500
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type; b=dGV2hF2AaX4UoEM7G7LDlCQNfOl//dF59mBlYVodlekPBCetlhTNy0sR4anEYhPWHd 61tBQxU2SYdO7d8QwmsO95QtgK1fWnFX6mf2ejX2kB1hFrpbDZ1Amoi+Dj/yoCfTuQ1k hZeun91F4VvrZs+QDdpzgQv7DVwNYBgmpdV08=
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-id: <>

On 01/29/2011 08:21 AM, Brian Koontz wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 06:48:26AM -0700, Bryon Eldridge wrote:
>> I think the important thing to keep in mind here is that no-one except
>> the monitoring team should ever use these FQDNs. Any consumers will
>> use IP addresses. So, we should setup the DNS however it's easiest
>> for the monitoring team to consume. At this point, it seems like
>> separate names are easier.
> This is exactly the reason why we went with separate names...but I'm
> OK with using whatever naming scheme is most convenient for the T2
> ops.
> --Brian
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss AT

that's in line with what I was thinking, with the exception of I thought
it was an unintended consequence, didn't know it was intentionally
planned. I do want to keep them separate, but I was thinking of
adjusting the naming scheme a little to help both the monitoring team
and the operators, just a visual aid for when an issue crops up, to
better help resolve it.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page