cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Change in IPAM licensing

No, nothing has been changed so far - the caption should just attract your attention . I would like to ask you for your opinion if we would not mark broadcast and network address as Reserved by default. That would mean you would save your license for truly used IP addresses - this is suitable especially for environments with lots of small subnets.

So do you have something against marking network and broadcast addresses as "available" by default?

we are listening.

thanks,

Michal

0 Kudos
15 Replies
mdriskell
Level 15

Re: Change in IPAM licensing

Truthfully I'd like them reserved because they cannot be used but not counted against licensing because they cannot be used.  Yeah I know I'm a cake and eat it too kind of guy.

PeterLyttle
Level 12

Re: Change in IPAM licensing

I am one of those people with a LOT of small subnets.  Personally I would like to see this being the case with Network and Broadcast being reserved and not classed as used (i.e. we have  /20 broken down into /29 and larger).  I dont know about other people but typically we allocate the first 3 usable addresses for default gateway (1 virtual and 2 physical), having a checkbox to "reserve" default gateway addresses (possibly with predefined comments etc) would also be a nice feature

0 Kudos

Re: Change in IPAM licensing

I can understand that. This change where we would keep these two addresses as reserved but exclude them from license is quite complicated for our engineering. I would like to double check if having network and broadcast as NOT reserved + some default comment would be sufficient or not (if not then we will do that, but it just take more time).

I'm also interested to hear feedback from the current IPAM users - would that change break something in your environment?

thanks,

Michal

0 Kudos
PeterLyttle
Level 12

Re: Change in IPAM licensing

I dont think it has to be classed as "Reserved" it could be classed as "Unusable" or "Network".  If you did this wouldnt that mean that engineering could still have "Reserved" as part of the licensing where as the Network / Broadcast addresses (tagged with a different option) dont come out of the license?

Happy to do a gotomeeting or have a call if it would help.

harrijs
Level 11

Re: Change in IPAM licensing

Personally I don't use the network and broadcast addresses in any capacity.  I am interested in saving addresses on my license by excluding these.

0 Kudos
jspanitz
Level 14

Re: Change in IPAM licensing

I'm with mike driskell and peterlyttle.  I'd like to see them marked as something other than reserved and not count against the licensing. We also have a bunch of small subnets and that eats into our license count.  It has always bugged me that it worked that way.

0 Kudos

Re: Change in IPAM licensing

Thanks guys.

Adding additional state is an option.

If you would have a choice:

1) having this addresses as "Available" with some descriptive default text in vnext

or

2) having new state (for example "Network/system") in the future.

what option you would go for (I'm trying to understand what is your time priority for that).

thanks all for a good feedback,

Michal

0 Kudos
jspanitz
Level 14

Re: Change in IPAM licensing

2) having new state (for example "Network/system") in the future.

That's the option we'd prefer.  Thx.

0 Kudos

Re: Change in IPAM licensing

ok, thanks John

0 Kudos