Short names with ephemeral ports versus long names with fixed distribution ports for cross-host Erlang clustering

Goal

Run distributed Erlang nodes across production hosts after local tests succeeded using short names and default ephemeral distribution ports.

Constraint

Production firewalls commonly allow EPMD on TCP 4369 but block the ephemeral TCP ports used for distribution data channels. Nodes started with -sname resolve on localhost but can fail across hosts when short-name DNS or interface binding differs. Nodes started with -name require a fully qualified domain name and consistent forward/reverse DNS on every host. Setting inet_dist_listen_min and inet_dist_listen_max pins listeners to a firewall-friendly range, but the range must match on all nodes and requires a VM restart. Short-name and long-name nodes cannot communicate in the same cluster.

Uncertainty

Assuming an OTP release where the kernel application exposes inet_dist_listen_min and inet_dist_listen_max, which approach fits hosts without guaranteed FQDN or uniform DNS: short names bound to a specific interface with a fixed port range, or long names with FQDN and the same fixed range?

• Can -sname nodes communicate across production hosts when each node binds to a different interface IP and distribution ports are restricted to a fixed range?
• Is -name with FQDN preferable when forward and reverse DNS cannot be guaranteed identical on every host?
• What is the safest migration path if local development used -sname but production requires cross-host long names?