This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 004B534685257163_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Here's my two cents, I recommend using DNS all the way. We use DNS with
short names aliased to the FQDN. I do not recommend using HOST files.
They are a nightmare to administer.
=============================
Carl Stehman
Pepco Holdings, Inc.
202-331-6619
Pager 301-765-2703
ckstehman AT pepco DOT com
David Rock <dave-bu AT graniteweb DOT com>
Sent by: veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
05/02/2006 02:31 PM
Please respond to
David Rock <dave-bu AT graniteweb DOT com>
To
veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
cc
Subject
Re: [Veritas-bu] FQDNs or Not ? [recommendations please]
* Rockey Reed <rockey_reed AT symantec DOT com> [2006-05-01 05:37]:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> > [mailto:veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] On Behalf Of Ed
> > Wilts
> > Yes. Not just for for NetBackup, but in general, use FQDN whenever
> > possible.
> >
> In this area I cannot help but to disagree with Ed, for whom I have
> great respect. The use of FQDN is used too often to mask a poor DNS
> configuration. With NBU you need full forward and reverse lookup. When
> either is missing a short term solution would be the use of /etc/hosts
> files until your network team can fix the DNS by adding the servers IP
> address to both zones.
This sounds like an argument FOR using DNS, not against it. :-)
Don't forget, the question was about using FQDN, _not_ using DNS. Which
way you implement it doesn't really matter (although generally that DOES
mean using DNS).
Basically, using FQDN is a good idea because it creates genuinely
unique client names in NetBackup. Without this, you run a real risk of
having two client short names that are the same. You might not see this
in a single-company, single-site environment, but it is a real danger in
multi-customer or multi-site environments. How many exchange1 servers
are out there, I wonder?
Imagine in an outsourcing situation where you have to tell client B that
the name of their server will have to change because client A got there
first (exchange servers don't like having a NBU client name that is
different from their real name).
The ONLY downside I have come across when using FQDN is when you work
heavily in the CLI. It does get tiresome when typing a long FQDN on the
commandline to do a bplist or some other activity, but knowing the
clients are unique helps a lot. This can also be mitigated quite a bit
with scripting and other looping activities off of bpplclients, anyway.
--
David Rock
david AT graniteweb DOT com
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
This Email message and any attachment may contain information that is
proprietary, legally privileged, confidential and/or subject to copyright
belonging to Pepco Holdings, Inc. or its affiliates ("PHI"). This Email is
intended solely for the use of the person(s) to which it is addressed. If
you are not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for
delivery of this Email to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this Email is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately
notify the sender and permanently delete this Email and any copies. PHI
policies expressly prohibit employees from making defamatory or offensive
statements and infringing any copyright or any other legal right by Email
communication. PHI will not accept any liability in respect of such
communications.
--=_alternative 004B534685257163_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Here's my two cents, I recommend using
DNS all the way. We use DNS with short names aliased to the FQDN.
I do not recommend using HOST files.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">They are a nightmare to administer.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">=============================<br>
Carl Stehman <br>
Pepco Holdings, Inc.<br>
202-331-6619<br>
Pager 301-765-2703<br>
ckstehman AT pepco DOT com</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>David Rock <dave-bu AT
graniteweb DOT com></b>
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: veritas-bu-admin AT
mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">05/02/2006 02:31 PM</font>
<table border>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to<br>
David Rock <dave-bu AT graniteweb DOT com></font></div></table>
<br>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT
edu</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [Veritas-bu] FQDNs or Not ?
[recommendations
please]</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>* Rockey Reed <rockey_reed AT symantec DOT com>
[2006-05-01
05:37]:<br>
> > -----Original Message-----<br>
> > From: veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu<br>
> > [mailto:veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] On Behalf Of
Ed Wilts<br>
> > Yes. Not just for for NetBackup, but in general, use FQDN
whenever<br>
> > possible.<br>
> > <br>
> In this area I cannot help but to disagree with Ed, for whom I have<br>
> great respect. The use of FQDN is used too often to mask a poor
DNS<br>
> configuration. With NBU you need full forward and reverse lookup.
When<br>
> either is missing a short term solution would be the use of /etc/hosts<br>
> files until your network team can fix the DNS by adding the servers
IP<br>
> address to both zones.<br>
<br>
This sounds like an argument FOR using DNS, not against it. :-)<br>
<br>
Don't forget, the question was about using FQDN, _not_ using DNS.
Which<br>
way you implement it doesn't really matter (although generally that DOES<br>
mean using DNS).<br>
<br>
Basically, using FQDN is a good idea because it creates genuinely<br>
unique client names in NetBackup. Without this, you run a real risk
of<br>
having two client short names that are the same. You might not see
this<br>
in a single-company, single-site environment, but it is a real danger in<br>
multi-customer or multi-site environments. How many exchange1 servers<br>
are out there, I wonder?<br>
Imagine in an outsourcing situation where you have to tell client B that<br>
the name of their server will have to change because client A got there<br>
first (exchange servers don't like having a NBU client name that is<br>
different from their real name).<br>
<br>
The ONLY downside I have come across when using FQDN is when you work<br>
heavily in the CLI. It does get tiresome when typing a long FQDN
on the<br>
commandline to do a bplist or some other activity, but knowing the<br>
clients are unique helps a lot. This can also be mitigated quite
a bit<br>
with scripting and other looping activities off of bpplclients, anyway.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
David Rock<br>
david AT graniteweb DOT com<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu<br>
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu<br>
</tt></font>
<br>
<br><br>This Email message and any attachment may contain information that is
proprietary, legally privileged, confidential and/or subject to copyright
belonging to Pepco Holdings, Inc. or its affiliates ("PHI"). This Email is
intended solely for the use of the person(s) to which it is addressed. If you
are not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for
delivery of this Email to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this Email is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately
notify the sender and permanently delete this Email and any copies. PHI
policies expressly prohibit employees from making defamatory or offensive
statements and infringing any copyright or any other legal right by Email
communication. PHI will not accept any liability in respect of such
communications.
--=_alternative 004B534685257163_=--
|
