> No, it's not arguably the correct one... at least you wouldn't be able
> to convince _me_ of that :-)  (For example, I use network-10 for some
> test network interfaces, and I don't put their symbolic names in the
> DNS at work... I just have /etc/hosts entries for them.)

I put all the 10.x.x.x addresses in a zone, say test.wsrcc.com.  I
must have been feeling very RFC conformant when I set it up because I
also marked it as "secure_local" so only local hosts could read it.
The advantage of doing it in DNS is that everyone can then have access
to the nameing information.  Putting it in /etc/hosts files means you
get to rdist/cut-n-paste the file around for the rest of your life.

The problem I see with ever using host files as a simple fallback when
the machine is up is a white-out problem.  Old crap thats long been
removed from DNS will still exist until its also removed from
/etc/hosts.  Its my strong conviction that /etc/hosts files are only
correct at t=0, when the machine is first set up. ;-)

-wolfgang