> 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@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 mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > 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@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf