On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 21:05 -0500, Reid Fishler wrote:

> Because the ports are currently labeled, we will allow allow members,
> upon request, to move to another port at the time that they remove the
> identity from their port.

You're saying that Akamai can move to another port and we won't put a
name on that port's graph? Wouldn't it be really obvious that the
unlabeled graph that's just started sending/receiving traffic is the one
network (Akamai) that just disappeared from the set of labeled graphs?

Plus, until there's another network that opts out, it's still obvious
which port is Akamai. And if that network isn't of a similar size, even
then it still be obvious.

I don't see any reason to move (or unlabel) anything. If you want to
grant these requests, just stop showing Akamai's port's graph to the
guest user in Cacti and remove it from the weathermap.

Access to the Cacti admin interface should be along the same lines as
access to manage the actual MICE switches: it's privileged and comes
with discretion requirements. Not every member has access to the
switches' management interface(s) nor Cacti admin today. I have neither,
for example.

--
Richard

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1