Re: Network Naming

[David Miller <dmiller () tiggee com>]

On 1/25/2011 8:15 PM, Gary Steers wrote:
> James makes a good point...
>
> > Pick a scheme which:
> >   1. Uses simple memorable names.
> >   2. Makes business sense to you.
> >   3. You know how to manage (database, publication, updates, etc.
> > If I had to weight these criteria, I would weight 3 most heavily.
>
> The other key thing to bear in mind is consistency and scalability... (i.e. design a scope that can grow with your 
> network and needs
>
> {interface/server}.{router/vmhost}.{city}.{country}.example.net
>
> The other thing that doesn't really have any defined list is {city}, Some people prefer 2 letter, some 3 letter, some 
> people use airport codes etc..

The naming schemes that I have developed that needed to be upgraded in 
the past have almost always bumped up against scale, so build in much 
larger scale than you ever think that you will need from the beginning.  
You have X devices now in Y locations, but your naming scheme should 
scale to X^Z devices in Y^Z locations.

I agree that for network gear, this is is a good place to start 
(slightly simplified here from above):

{interface}.{host}.{location}.example.net


- Location
  I personally prefer UN LOCODEs for country / city.  The UN already 
went to the trouble of giving a unique code to every country/city.  Why 
do I use them?  LON makes perfect sense as London, England... until you 
have devices in London, KY and London, OH (the LOCODES for these Londons 
are GB LON, US LDN, US LOZ).  In my opinion, airport codes (while 
certainly unique) work well in some locales and not so well in others 
(so, I don't use them, YMMV).

- Host
  I prefer, like many do, an acronym denoting the primary function of 
the device.  ES (edge switch), AR (access router), CR (core router), 
etc... whatever your internal terminology is.  If you will *ever* have 
more than 10 of a device anywhere, then I would recommend that you 
number out of double digits (more than 100, then out of triple 
digits...).  That way in a sorted list AR03 will be right between AR02 
and AR04, where you expect it to be, instead of between AR29 and AR30.  
Standardizing on number length also limits ambiguity in pressure 
situations and/or over noisy or less reliable communication channels.

- Interface
  Port names vary on gear from different vendors.  {interface type} - 
{selector}* ... where selector repeats ordered from highest to lowest 
level of granularity (e.g. rack/slot/module/port) is what I use.  You 
should use whatever makes sense to you.  Are interface speeds or vlans 
important to your infrastructure?  If so, then include them where 
appropriate.  Unless you have exactly the same gear everywhere, you are 
going to have to be flexible here.

I recommend documenting your naming standard and getting buy in across 
your organization before you put it into place.  By giving names to 
these devices/interfaces at all, you are exposing information to the 
world.  What makes perfect sense to engineering and support may give 
security, management, and/or marketing heart palpitations.

Just my $0.02 (probably overvalued).

> Hope that helps!
>
> G
>
> ---
> Gary Steers
> Sharedband NOC/3rd Line Support
> Sharedband
> UK: +44 (0)1473 287207
> US: +1 206 420 0240
> E: gary.steers () sharedband com
>
> We have a new support system - http://support.sharedband.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler James R [mailto:james.cutler () consultant com]
> Sent: 25 January 2011 22:41
> To: nanog group
> Subject: Re: Network Naming
>
> On Jan 25, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Nick Olsen wrote:
>
> > Whats the rule of thumb for naming gear these days
> > (routers,switches...etc). Or is there one?
> Pick a scheme which:
> 1. Uses simple memorable names.
> 2. Makes business sense to you.
> 3. You know how to manage (database, publication, updates, etc.
>
> If I had to weight these criteria, I would weight 3 most heavily.
>
>
> James R. Cutler
> james.cutler () consultant com