nanog mailing list archives
Re: US patent 5473599
From: Ryan Shea <ryanshea () google com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:23:57 -0400
Great news about the patent age. Paul, sounds like this outage-causing catastrophe you mention could happen to your competitors _if_ they happened to run vrrp and carp on the same subnet _and_ happened to have a host identifier conflict - is that right? I just wanted to clarify. CARP has been a great solution for me in the past and is one of the features of BSD I think is great (along with OpenNTPd, OpenBGPd - which probably have similar standards non-compliance). Has anyone tried to use the userspace VRRP implementation on Linux... I recall delicacy and kludginess from the one time I used it - so again, CARP = rad. On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Paul WALL <pauldotwall () gmail com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 22, 2014, Henning Brauer <hb-nanog () bsws de> wrote:* Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org <javascript:;>> [2014-04-22 10:29]:... turns 20 today. This is the patent which covers hsrp, vrrp, many applications of carpandsome other vendor-specific standby protocols.it does NOT cover carp, not at all. carp was carefully designed to specifically avoid that.CARP is a nonstandard protocol that was carefully designed to cause outages. Its authors submitted a slide deck describing their protocol instead of an internet-draft, which somehow managed to not get any traction in the IETF (funny that). The bar is pretty low for an informational RFC but the CARPheads couldn't be bothered. They threw a tantrum which involved camping out on the IETF's OUI (rather than getting their own) and deliberately choosing host bytes that conflict with the VRRP standard. This has the same predictable result as any duplicate MAC address, but since odds are it conflicts with a router, takes out the entire subnet instead of a single host. Of course this is not mentioned anywhere in CARP's documentation. That's why I encourage my competitors to run it. Drive slow, Paul
Current thread:
- US patent 5473599 Nick Hilliard (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Nick Hilliard (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Paul WALL (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Ryan Shea (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Paul WALL (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Steve Clark (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Warren Bailey (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Nick Hilliard (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (Apr 23)
- Re: US patent 5473599 TGLASSEY (Apr 23)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (Apr 23)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Donald Eastlake (Apr 23)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (Apr 24)