Talk:IP address management

I think this needs sections on top: relationship to ITIL CMDB

IP Space
- comparison with physical memory allocation strategies in computing systems, similar problems of efficient usage of space vs. block size - support for VRFS / VLANS - SWIP records - resource usage - assignment - release - block management - address space utilization checking methods (ping sweeps, arp cache snooping, DHCP server log snooping, reverse DNS records)

DNS namespace
- assignment of names - creation of primary and secondary zones - support for internal and external views - dyndns

DHCP
- creation of configurations - DNS entry generation

Server Management
- features around the upgrade of software and management of the IPAM system RichardLetts (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC) ---

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Internet Protocol address management → IP address management – I believe it's more commonly known by this shorter name.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * support nobody uses that mouthful 'Internet protocol' any more. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 08:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * support per common book usage. Dicklyon (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article flags
Hi,

I don't get why a subject matter expert is needed on this page? The flags don't make sense and seem old. If nobody has an issue I can remove them. Warren (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Windows Server 2012?
Not sure how it fits into the table, but IPAM is a big feature of Server 2012 (see: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh831353.aspx)

useful links
--Operatorofhell (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * routerfreak.com - IP Address Management Tools: Best IPAM Tools for 2018
 * packetlife.net - In Search of a Provider-Grade IPAM Solution
 * networkworld.com - More ways to manage IP addresses
 * Hi! Thanks for your suggested links, starting with your help I made this:
 * * This edition: I added references from third parties (instructions: «This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.»).
 * * This edition: External link for extended form of IPAM (instructions: «This network-related software article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.»).
 * * This edition: The basic characteristics that these software share(instructions: «This network-related software article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.»).
 * * This edition: External links converted to references, Wikipedia style (Instructions: «Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references.»).


 * Thanks very much for your attention! --Jimmy Olano (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources and potential promotion/spam problems
I have re-added a template for third-party sources. This was previously removed, but the underlying problem was not addressed, which is understandable, since I did not explain the problem before.

Right now, no list entries have individual articles, and most entries are supported only by links to the product's own website. This is, functionally, using Wikipedia as a directory of commercial products, which is a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Each product should be supported by a reliable source. A commercial product's own website is not presumed reliable, so independent sources should be favored.

The underlying problem is that there is no way to distinguish between useful products, and vaporware, scams, spam, etc. Since Wikipedia is not equipped to provide recommendations, we are by default presenting all of these products as broadly equivalent, but this comparison isn't supported by sources. References with external links to a product's site certainly can be included as a convenience, but the article should not WP:SYNTH these sources into a comparison table which isn't directly supported by any independent, reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with removal of the product table. Kbrose (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)