Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm setting up a closed network (i.e. no connections outside it) and I have been thinking of setting up servers and services without FQDN's because it would much more convenient to connect to a service that way.

Services that will be offered as planned atm:

  • Gitorious,
  • Redmine,
  • Hudson,
  • Open Embedded and OBS,
  • DHCP,
  • DNS,
  • MTA (postfix probably),
  • Open LDAP,
  • SIP server (asterisk).

There won't be more than one server to start with (Ubuntu 10.04). I might set some virtual machines up later on that same server and of course I might need to add more servers later.

So are there any problems in naming the addresses e.g. "redmine"?

share|improve this question
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Why not just use FQDN's and set your DHCP server to provide an appropriate DNS search suffix?

share|improve this answer
Newbie alert: I could do that, didn't know it was possible. I have never set up a DNS or DHCP server (or Open LDAP for that matter)... – Marko Poutiainen Jul 1 '10 at 10:41
Ah, righto — since you're a newbie another thing you may not have considered is naming your machines independently of the services they run and then using a CNAME to provide a friendly name for each service. Doing this gives you a bit of flexibility as your infrastructure needs change. – andrewtj Jul 2 '10 at 1:38
Well, that I was going to do, but indirectly. The server itself will be names something and the services are named after the service they provide. I planned this just for convenience, though, but I don't mind the flexibility! – Marko Poutiainen Jul 2 '10 at 5:07

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.