Re: Machine Identity

[Miika Komu <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

> 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.

Hi,

sorry, I misread the email first time. I agree that there is no single 
identity that suites all environments on all layers of the stack.

-- 
Miika Komu                                       http://www.iki.fi/miika/