3 ms·

If we're naming racks to be serviceable, seems easier to have numeric rows, dash, alphanumeric cabinets, dash, numeric racks. 3-K-7 seems extremely better than

If we're naming racks to be serviceable, seems easier to have numeric rows, dash, alphanumeric cabinets, dash, numeric racks. 3-K-7 seems extremely better than disney-snowwhite-dopey. And your labels should hold the breadcrumb: [3] (row), [3-K] (cabinet), [3-K-7] (rack). The other benefit is not having to guess where these things are (or having to dictate this very same information to land someone near "dopey").

peterwwillis 12y ago
Can't start with a number or you won't be able to use it as a host DNS record. But yes, numbers and letters that correlate to significant information would totally be useful compared to a random string, with the caveat that putting rack/row information in a hostname would mean changing all the records relating to that host every time you moved it around in a rack. (which might be the best way to mandate that the damn NOC engineers record where they moved the goddamn host to...)
- ghshephard 12y ago
  I'm curious - what's wrong with starting DNS A records off with numbers? dig +short 4test.shephard.org 4.2.2.2
  - lmz 12y ago
    Illegal according to the RFC syntax for a DNS "label": http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1035#section-2.3.1 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1035#section-2.3.1
    - yuubi 12y ago
      One aspect of host name syntax is hereby changed: the restriction on the first character is relaxed to allow either a letter or a digit. Host software MUST support this more liberal syntax. -- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1123#section-2 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1123#section-2
      - aalbertson 12y ago
        thank goodness, how else would 4chan have been allowed to exist on teh interwebz?