RFC 1178, RFC 2100, and RFC 2219 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1178.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2100.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2219.txt
It doesn't clearly tell the location, company, and function of the device. That's a bad practice. You might want to try looking at this instead: http://telecom-info.telcordia.com/site-cgi/ido/index.html Do a search for "Common Language". This is the telecom standard for naming conventions like CLLI, CLEI, CLFI, CLCI What I've found to be useful for TCP/IP-based networks is to use DNS or LDAP (or possibly another database, but both of those are best suited to do this kind of stuff) to contain the "extra" information. A lot of people use SNMP to do this, as well, but it's limited in comparison to DNS and LDAP. Things like LOC, SNV, and even TXT DNS resource records can handle this type of information rather well. I've always appreciated RFC 1178 in combination with a single block of IP addresses for loopback addresses. This way a router's loopback address and hostname stays the same from the day you first configure it to the days of it's largest packet pushing moments to the final day when you brush the dust off of it in the storage closet to trade it up for new gear. And what's really wrong with naming a router "fluffybunny" anyways? All of this really depends on your organization. If you are strict Telecom and follow Bellcore/Telcordia and ISO/IEC guidelines, then by all means, go with Common Language. If you are a new world TCP/IP network - use RFC 1178 for the A records, RFC 2219 for the CNAME records (like www, ns, ldap, as well as machine-parsable names like sjc1-br01). If you are something in-between (both Telecom and TCP/IP) then do both (maybe they should be or already are separate networks with separate administration anyways). Combining IP address management, DNS, LDAP, and Common Language would be a *very* cool project. I don't believe that any IP address should have more than one DNS A record because CNAME records should be used instead for simplification. You could also do a zone dump of just the A records and then know that you have no duplicate IP addresses. This isn't really well known, and I would be willing to bet that my ideas are not universal (which is really too bad). A lot of people have very strict ideas about "Naming Conventions" that don't follow any standards. Maybe there really isn't a standard just because the network operators have not yet agreed on one (visible by the various naming implementation differences). -dre ""Richard Tufaro"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hey Im looking for a good naming convention that clearly tells the location, > company and function of the device. Does anyone what to submit there naming > contentions? What is the "best" naming convention? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36545&t=36535 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
