On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Bill Hamel wrote: > Using fqdns in mission critical applications is not a good idea IMHO, it just > adds another layer of something that can go wrong.
Or, it just changes the type of things that can go wrong. In Australia, the recently-introduced number portability infrastructure for mobile phones means that every call to a mobile number must be routed through a 'central' directory[1] instead of being sent straight to the right network based on the number prefix. Sure, this is one more thing that can go wrong, but one of the benefits is that you can now switch between networks without having to change your phone number. I mention this because it's the same (well, similar) tradeoff between using DNS and IP addressing. Will your communications partners *guarantee* that they will *never* change the IP addresses of their servers? If they do change, can you guarantee that you can make all the configuration changes in all of your servers that communicate with theirs in a timely-enough fashion to meet service levels? I'm not suggesting that the DNS response to this is entirely flawless, but it does reduce administration overhead for adds/moves/changes -- especially between different organisations. Also, using IP address *may* cut you out of load-balancing or disaster recovery processes that your partners may make to ensure that you get good service from them. I'm not trying to say that IP addressing is a bad idea. You just need to assess the risks of using either method. Cheers, Vic Cross [1] This is a drastic oversipmlification -- it's actually much worse than one single directory as I understand it. _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
