On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 16:40, Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote:
> I'd suggest staying very close to our SE's for the desired outcome we > want for this development. As we have seen before, Juniper appear > reasonably open to operator feedback, but we would need to give it to > them to begin with. I urge everyone to give them the same message as I've given. Any type of license, even timed license, after it expires will not cause an outage. And enforcement would be 'call home' via 'http(s)' proxy, which reports the license-use data to Juniper sales, making it a commercial problem between Juniper and you. Proxy, so that you don't need Internet access on the device. Potentially you could ask for encryption-less mode, if you want to log on the proxy what is actually being sent to the vendor. I don't give flying or any other method of locomotion fuck about leaking information. I believe this is a very reasonable give/take compromise which is marketable, but if we try to start punching holes through esoteric concerns, we'll get boxes which die periodically because someone forgot to re-up. This is a real future that may happen, unless we demand it must not. -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
