Jason Adams has published some feedback to all the comments: http://blogs.technet.com/b/configmgrteam/archive/2013/03/01/when-not-to-use-ip-address-ranges-as-boundaries-in-configuration-manager.aspx?PageIndex=2#comments
J Sandys and J Marcum care to comment ? ☺ Trond From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Sandys Sent: 5. mars 2013 05:32 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [mssms] Wait, whut? Only use IP ranges in certain cases as boundaries? Note that I’ve begun a dialog with Jason on this one (the PM that wrote the blog post) and gotten a lot of feedback from peers and members of the community so I’m sure an updated blog post will be forthcoming with the end goal to help everyone implement ConfigMgr “better”. J From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: March 4, 2013 3:40 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [mssms] Wait, whut? Only use IP ranges in certain cases as boundaries? +1 for Jason! Never heard you disagree with the Borg leaders before On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Jason Sandys <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I think everyone knows my opinion on this one. > > The author does make one valid point, IP Address Range boundaries are more > intensive to process and thus have a performance impact. That's his only > valid point though. He even implies that AD uses subnet IDs which is > completely false. > > He starts out by supporting his argument based on SMS2003 behavior as if > that makes it valid; i.e., we didn't have it there before so it's wrong > now. Terrible logic. Just because it wasn't there before, doesn't mean that > IP Subnet [ID] boundaries are correct. > > "However, once the subnet ID is derived using the subnet mask, it is no > longer required by Configuration Manager. The subnet ID is an intrinsic > attribute of the system in the Configuration Manager database." > > This statement is "laughable" (sorry, no offense, don't know how else to > put it though) as it shows a complete lack of understanding of IP > addressing. It all comes down to the fact that in a Variable Length Subnet > Mask (VLSM) world -- which we've been in for almost 15 years btw -- a > Subnet ID does *not* uniquely identify a subnet. > > The correct solution is to implement a new boundary type that is truly > based on IP Subnets (like AD does) and not IP Subnet IDs. > > I'm going to pass my feedback on directly also and will see what happens. > > J > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > [mailto: > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On > Behalf Of Marcum, John > Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 10:15 AM > To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [mssms] Wait, whut? Only use IP ranges in certain cases as > boundaries? > > I could not disagree with that blog more. > > 1. It is microsoft's own terminology that created the initial confusion > around the importance of the subnet mask. That statement has never been > clarified to my satisfaction > > 2. The paragraph about subnet masks makes me think this person works in a > eutopian environment. In the real world the mask doesn't always match the > subnet ID. I'm not saying that's good practice but that's the way it is. > > > > Typos courtesy of Apple. Sent from my iOS device. > > On Mar 2, 2013, at 9:56 AM, "Lindenfeld, Ivan" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]%0b>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Official Microsoft blog: > > > http://blogs.technet.com/b/configmgrteam/archive/2013/03/01/when-not-to-use-ip-a ddress-ranges-as-boundaries-in-configuration-manager.aspx > > This goes against the prevailing wisdom of this list, including my own. > > Ivan Lindenfeld > > > ________________________________ > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be > protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have > received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to > this e-mail and then delete it from your computer. > > ________________________________ > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be > protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have > received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to > this e-mail and then delete it from your computer. > > > > > > > > > > > > - C.htm ----------------------------------------- This message, and any attachments to it, may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or communication of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you.
