On 06/27/2013 08:10 AM, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
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.
Regardless of what I do with my network, I hang out on IRC all day,
every day, and see what real use is from multitudes of other users.
There's often new engineers coming in to fix bad designs, there's
unexpected growth that requires re-allocation of the limited ipv4
resources a company has. There's inexperienced folks that, and you hit
the nail on the head on that one, have built a system that they later
realize was, indeed, a bad design.
All this is really rather an aside, though, to the design concepts that
we're discussing and how best to build a structure that has the ability
to be managed and grow features. Having a network interface be the
parent object to a server is illogical.
