Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 15:27:13 -0500 (CDT) From: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert) Cc: jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com, terry@lambert.org, wollman@lcs.mit.edu, jhs@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org, commercial@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Licensing Software Message-ID: <199609252027.PAA08673@brasil.moneng.mei.com> In-Reply-To: <199609252019.NAA06603@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Sep 25, 96 01:19:30 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > One of the biggest barriers to IPv6 is the people who are going to cling > > to their IPv4 IP addresses for reasons such as legacy license servers. > > > > (I don't know if that is true or not, but I suspect it is more true than > > not)... I think that was what he was sayin'. > > Then IPv6 is already screwed, isn't it, and a general soloution to > the problem for all systems will solve it for FreeBSD at the same > time. > > This is a non-problem. Bull. If we continue to promote tying licenses, we are participating in creating the problem. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. > > > Flexible renumbering in general? Yes, I'll admit it's a barrier > > > to flexible renumbering. Under what circumstances would you want > > > to allow a license host to "flexibly renumber"? To hide the > > > licenses from Billy-Bob? It makes no sense. > > > > When the customer is assigned an address block out of an ISP's CIDR block > > and wants to change ISP's because the old ISP is out of business? > > IPv6 solves this problem by making my address ranges independent of > my ISP/NSP: the address range is sufficiently enlarged, I can get a > range assignment of my own. I have yet to see a convincing argument that there will be a sufficient advance in router technologies to allow this. Do you understand why CIDR is currently deployed? Because routers can't handle the zillions of individual route advertisements. What you are saying is that somehow magically due to the address space getting bigger, this problem will solve itself. I contend that there will be more discrete networks and that the problem will be worse. > > There is a definite need to be able to flexibly renumber. > > There's a need for a lot of things which somply aren't being addressed, > or less simply, are being purposely ignored. Such as...? > > > de0: DC21040 [10Mb/s] pass 2.3 Ethernet address 00:80:48:e8:1b:b1 > > > ----------------------------------------------------***************** > > > de0: enabling 10baseT/UTP port > > > > Of course, when you switch Ethernet cards, you are screwed. > > So: > > A) Either: Don't switch ethernet cards > B) Or: accept that as part of the overhead associated with > switching ethernet cards, and make the decision, when > you make it, after taking that fact into account Yes, which isn't great after a lightning strike fries all of your NIC's because one machine had an internal modem and suffered a wire strike. > > Although I will tend to think that's a better solution than IP address :-) > > Bleah. Show me a functioning IPv6 network where the variant portion > of the address can't be ignored to achieve the same effect as using > IP addresses. I don't see why it should be tied to something as potentially transient as the IP address. > > The PC isn't suited to this. It has no hardware to do it. And even on > > machines where there is hardware to do it, node locked licenses suck. > > And even where they don't, you can "spoof" the hardware by trapping > the user mode programs access to the kernel mode dongle driver, and > lying. So even a hardware soloution -- isn't. Absolutely. Solution? Hm. ... JG
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609252027.PAA08673>