Subject: Re: Changing the PHY status reporting
To: Brad <email@example.com>
From: John Nemeth <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/18/2006 15:34:27
On Jul 11, 12:54pm, Brad wrote:
} On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 03:15:36PM -0800, John Nemeth wrote:
} > On Jul 11, 1:30pm, "Liam J. Foy" wrote:
} > }
} > } Just as a side note, CARP is basically now completely working. The
} > } last remaining issues have been resolved now.
} > }
} > } Hope to have a patch ready within the next few days(against HEAD).
} > Do we know whether or not CARP violates Cisco's patent? I.e. is
} > bringing CARP in a wise idea? We should probably just implement VRRP
} > as it is the standard and Cisco has said they will allow people
} > implementing it to use their patent. A different protocol, such as
} > CARP, may get us into trouble.
} You're confusing CARP with VRRP. It is the other way around.
No, I'm not confusing anything. I'm well aware that VRRP violates
Cisco's patent. However, Cisco has publicly stated that they will not
prosecute anybody implementing it. However, to my knowledge, they have
not made any comments about CARP. So, my question stands: de we know
if CARP violates Cisco's patent?
}-- End of excerpt from Brad