On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 03:34:27PM -0800, John Nemeth wrote:
> 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?
 
No, CARP does not violate Cisco's patent. It was designed specifically
so it does not.