Subject: Re: Changing the PHY status reporting
To: None <>
From: Brad <>
List: tech-net
Date: 02/18/2006 18:44:54
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 06:36:26PM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> In message <>, Brad writes:
> >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.
> >> 
> >> }-- End of excerpt from "Liam J. Foy"
> >
> >You're confusing CARP with VRRP. It is the other way around.
> >
> No -- VRRP is definied in RFC 3768 as an IETF Draft Standard.
> As for IPR -- Cisco has not made such a statement, at least to the 
> is the latest document filed there; it provides for "reasonable,
> non-discriminatory terms".   IBM has also made a claim (and a similar 
> offer); see
> CARP is OpenBSD's protocol to avoid the patent.  See
> .  Also note that CARP runs as 
> protocol 112, the same as VRRP, as a political statement by OpenBSD -- 
> it doesn't "conflict with anything else of value".  
> 		--Steven M. Bellovin,

I am very well aware of the situation. I am an OpenBSD developer.

And Cisco has also not made any guarentees of NOT exercising that patent,
it is a risk that is unacceptable. It also does not sit well knowing Cisco
sued Alcatel over that VRRP patent.

It has nothing to do with a political statement. OpenBSD would use its own
protocol number if IANA was willing to allocate a number for the protocol.