Re: Network Naming

[Cutler James R <james.cutler () consultant com>]

> I recommend documenting your naming standard and getting buy in across your organization before you put it into 
> place. 

This is a necessary condition for successful deployment, but not part of the schema.



On Jan 25, 2011, at 11:32 PM, David Miller wrote:

> 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

James R. Cutler
james.cutler () consultant com