Re: Machine Identity

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder at jacobs-university.de>]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 02:12:56PM +0200, Miika Komu wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:23:18PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>>
>>> An example of an Use Case is given by IKE (RFC 4306). Section 3.5
>>> lists several possible identities for a machine, and there is not a
>>> clear unique way to define this identity (identities like ID_IPV4_ADDR
>>> are typically a poor way to define a machine on the network).
>>
>> After several years in network management (where the first thing you
>> like to have are stable unique identities), I have come to the
>> conclusion that it is hopeless to search for such a generally useful
>> identity.  What works is all very much dependent on the purpose and
>> the specific situation, as others have pointed out before.
>>
>> And even if someone manages to come up with a good solution, people
>> sooner or later will try to circumvent it since in several situations
>> it is a feature and not a bug to be able to do dirty things with
>> identities.
>
> Hi Juergen,
>
> sorry, but I disagree with your opinion. Please give some pointers to 
> publications that back up your conclusion.

I don't know what you disagree with. 

- If it is my statement that it is hard to find a stable unique
  identifier that is generically useful, then simply proof me wrong
  by example.

- If it is my statement that people will find reasons to muddle around
  with the uniqueness and stability property of whatever identifer you
  invent? I guess this is hard to proof so lets call it a hypothesis.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>