Smart Licensing is no longer đ . Everything that Smart Licensing was and required has been reverted back to before Smart Licensing was imposed. I believe this was another attempt at separating Ciscoâs hardware from the software that runs it.
Entitlement to use the software is now being verified? Let me ask you this⌠Can a Cisco switch function as a switch without IOS? No, it cannot. Without a way to configure the hardware, it will do absolutely nothing. Software that is inherent for a device to function is always transferable.
"The whole point of the first sale doctrine is that once the copyright owner places a copyrighted item in the stream of commerce by selling it, he has exhausted his exclusive statutory right to control its distribution."
-Supreme Court Justice Stevens
Cisco claims the first sale doctrine doesnât apply due to Vernor v. Autodesk, but do you think the software on a Cisco switch is more akin to whatâs on any standard kitchen appliance, or is it more like Microsoft Office which requires a license activation key before installation can even happen? A microwave does nothing unless there is software to run it. Boxed software is entirely different. For example, we canât drop a copy of Ciscoâs IOS on another OEMâs box and have it work. The two bundled together is the product, and we can purchase different bundles based on the required features.
Iâll move on, but keep pushing back on these forced initiatives and know the main reason Smart Licensing and the Smart Licensing Using Policy were created was to impact Ciscoâs shareholders. Since taking the helm in 2015, Chuck Robbins has been committed to changing Cisco from a hardware company to a software company. Doing so will exponentially increase Ciscoâs valuation. DNA, Cisco Prime, and Cisco ONE were all created since Robbins took over. Unfortunately, the ultimate result of Smart Licensing has been wasted time and money for all parties involved.
According to Cisco, Smart Licensing was âreinventing licensingâ and âtransforming how we think about Cisco.â If you add it all up, Ciscoâs goal was to âreinvent and transform how we think about Cisco licensing.â Do you need any reinventing or transformations around their licensing? What if we just left it as a perpetual license because, without the software, the device isnât functional?
Beginning with IOS XE version 16.9, all hardware was suddenly required to âphone homeâ or check in with a Cisco cloud license validation/entitlement system known as Cisco Smart Software Manager or CSSM. If entitlement wasnât validated, the new version of software would eventually disable the device.
In addition to the newly introduced risk of losing a functioning device in a production environment, there were new security implications by requiring customers to stay connected to Ciscoâs cloud, as well as interoperability issues such as Field Notice: FN72323.
Do you know what the market agreed to with Smart Licensing? I doubt legal departments for Ciscoâs customers reviewed the Smart Licensing Terms of Use. From their Terms of Use V5, Smart Licensing collected and stored software license usage information, product ID numbers, serial numbers, unique virtual device identifier, equipment models, license and hardware versions, host names, IP addresses, system contacts, installed memory, installed flash, boot versions, chassis series, MAC addresses, slot IDs, card types, and card families.
At the very bottom of the Terms of Use reads:
âCisco is a global company and, as such, may need to transfer your personal information both within the United States and outside of the United States in accordance with our Privacy Statement. By using Smart Licensing, you consent to the transfer, processing, and storage of such information outside of your country of residence where data protection standards may be different.â
We were consenting to our network data being stored in countries where data protection laws might be different. Which countries? What are the global differences in data protection laws?
Beginning with IOS XE 17.3.2, the Smart Licensing Using Policy (SLP) is in effect. At 17.3.2, we go back to what it was like before 16.9 with a new ârequirementâ to at some point report license usage to the Smart Account. âRequirementâ is more of a suggestion here.
Whatâs new with SLP compared to Smart Licensing?
Which platforms/images are subject to SLP?
How often is reporting required? (See 4.5. in Smart License Using Policy - FAQ).
Perpetual Licenses:
Subscription Licenses:
Licensing will now have three defining components: License Type, Enforcement Type, and Export Status. The different combinations require different reporting time frames.
License Type:
Enforcement Type:
Export Status:
For the most part, this is a win for the market. However, Smart Accounts arenât obsolete yet, but I suspect they will be, as reporting and the time required to manage this effort doesnât add little if any value to the end-user.
The required information to âreconcileâ is:
The
Along with the internal timer, the system will report daily errors in the run log about Call Home and reporting. As of this publication, there is no way to turn it off.
âno service call-homeâ and âno call-homeâ disable the services and error messages, but the Smart Agent in the software upon reboot enables them again. Same with âlicense smart transport off.â The most effective solution that Iâve seen so far is an eem scriplet which runs upon boot and disables the Smart Agent.
Be prepared to see the following error messages:
If you find another way to disable the Smart Agents, please let us know! Otherwise, weâll post an update to this blog when we learn of a better way.
If youâd like to be notified when a solution is available, sign up for email notifications using the form below.