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:
Mark_Andrews(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
--
--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
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf