This discussion about terminology has gotten rather pedantic. The
wikipedia article cited previously states the following example:
"west.example.com and east.example.com are subdomains of the
example.com domain, which in turn is a subdomain of the 'com'
Are Charles and Ken suggesting that blahblah.dilgardfoods.com is not a
subdomain of dilgardfoods.com?
Charles suggested that blahblah.dilgardfoods.com might point to a
publicly addressed "server". Jeff indicated that
blahblah.dilgardfoods.com pointed to the IP address of a "firewall" in
I will go with Jeff on this because I have never known of any
organization ever assigning a public IP address to a "server".
Instead, they assign a public IP address to a network device
(gateway/router/firewall) in their control which may further route to
other network devices in their control, which may ultimately route to
a "server" in their control.
It appears that some of the terminology confusion in this discussion
may have been a result of how one views internal "names" and "routing"
mechanisms within internal networks vs. how names and routing is done
via public DNS. For example, a company may set up a web proxy on an
internal network which routes blahblah.dilgardfoods.com to a web
server on the other side of the planet. But that routing is not based