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. > > > > > 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 checklist and see which things meet your criteria. (my assertion that location/ID 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 that until one can cleanly seperate the two, that renumbering will be difficult 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 persistant identifier... I tried to make that claim a decade ago and was persuaded (eventually) otherwise. Time to dig through the archives to see if that 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@xxxxxxx -- --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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf