> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:17:21PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:08:30AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > interestingly, some software vendors ship w/ license
> > > > > keys tied to IP addresses... particularly for enterprise
> > > > > level stuff. not so easy to update in my experience.
> > > >
> > > > I've always thought that practice to be STUPID. It was
> > > > stupid 15 years ago and it is still stupid today. Yes
> > > > I've had to renumber sites with keys tied to IP addresses.
> > >
> > > stupid or not, it exists and is not ammenable to automation.
> >
> > Why isn't it? It's just one more message for the management
> > station to push out.
>
> notifcation sure... getting the other side to re-issue the license
> with the new IP's (which the MS has to figure out what they are on
> its own, wiht the kewl AI-based smarts that it has) - and then
> getting the new code installed/configured ... all under the automated
> hands of "master control".... is a different set of considerations.
Actually if they want to tie the licence to a address, a ULA
would provide exactly the same level of assurance they get
today and make it independent of PA renumber events.
> > > > > David is correct, scale does have its own set of renumbering
> > > > > problems. While i believe you, i think your confidence
> > > > > is based on some naieve assumptions.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not saying scale doesn't have problems. Automation
> > > > however is the solution to those problems. That's why
> > > > management stations were invented.
> > >
> > > automation can augment renumbering events, but until we
> > > have a fundamental change in architecture, renumbering will require
> > > human intervention and will always be disruptive.
> >
> > It doesn't take a change in architecture. We have the
> > technology today to remove the need to tie anything to specific
> > IP addresses. It just requires the willingness to use it.
>
> simple assertion does not make it so. perhaps we should make a checkli
> st
> and see which things meet your criteria. (my assertion that location/I
> D
> overload is built in to both IPv4 and IPv6 seems to be born out by the
> specs, documentation, and commentary over the past 25 years ... and tha
> t
> until one can cleanly seperate the two, that renumbering will be diffic
> ult
> should also be tested) I have provided TWO cases where renumbering is
> is difficult to automate - i'm sure i can find others. I beleive your
> claim (oblique as it may be) is that the DNS name is the long-term pers
> istant
> identifier... I tried to make that claim a decade ago and was persuade
> d
> (eventually) otherwise. Time to dig through the archives to see if tha
> t
> logic still holds true.
>
>
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > > --bill
> > > Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
> > > certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
> > --
> > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
> --bill
>
> Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
> certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
