On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 07:47:18 -0700 Joe Julian <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I hear what you're saying, but I can't see that as a valid design to > provide future growth and to regain the flexibility that I believe you > enjoyed when we used to write vol files. The server needs to be > identified in an abstract way so the network and anything else can be > managed around its existence. A brick should belong to that server, not > to an ip address. > > Network re-configurations happen. Servers get renumbered. > [...] Now we do have a general disagreement on how a network topology should look like nowadays. You renumber server nodes? Why this? Wrong design? Servers provide services on virtual IPs nowadays, not on hardcoded true network layout driven ones. So there is no need to renumber anything anywhen. You may need to add/remove one/some virtual IPs every now and then, but for sure there should be no need to renumber backends to a big extent. Your clients may have varying IP ranges at the same or different times, but at the backend you do not want this, for plain security reasons to name one point. And if you design your network on clear view of what is internal (backend) and external (user/client) you give a damn on UUIDs, instead you want clear network barriers based on IP ranges and probably some transparent boxes in between them. -- Regards, Stephan
