Visual Comparison of Flat vs Hierarchical DNS Namespaces
1. Flat DNS Namespace
example.com
├── server1.example.com
├── server2.example.com
├── printer1.example.com
└── laptop-john.example.com
- All hosts are directly under the main domain.
- Simple, but hard to scale for larger networks.
2. Hierarchical DNS Namespace
example.com
├── hr.example.com
│ ├── server1.hr.example.com
│ └── server2.hr.example.com
├── sales.example.com
│ └── server1.sales.example.com
├── it.example.com
│ └── printer1.it.example.com
└── staff.example.com
└── laptop-john.staff.example.com
- Hosts are organized under subdomains.
- Each department or group can manage its own zone.
- Scalable for large organizations or the Internet.
Key Differences
| Feature | Flat Namespace | Hierarchical Namespace |
|---|---|---|
| Structure | Single level | Multi-level (tree-like) |
| Scalability | Poor | Excellent |
| Delegation | Not possible | Each subdomain can be delegated |
| Management | Simple for few hosts | Easier for large networks |
| Example FQDN | server1.example.com | server1.hr.example.com |
This content is copyright-free and can be used for educational or blog purposes.
