nanog mailing list archives
Re: US patent 5473599
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 21:55:51 +0100
On 23/04/2014 17:47, Henning Brauer wrote:
fortunately this obviously isn't a big problem in practice, based on the fact that we don't get any complaints/reports in that direction. still would be way micer if that situation had been created in the first place, but as said - we weren't given that choice.
the situation was created by the openbsd team, not the ieee, the ietf or iana. You squatted on an existing oui assignment used by an equivalent protocol and in doing this, you created a long term problem with no possible solution other than to change carp to use its own dedicated range instead of someone else's. You had every choice in the world about what range to use and even if you didn't have the $2500 at the time to register a perpetual OUI assignment, almost any other OUI in existence would have been less detrimental to users than the one you chose. The openbsd foundation raised $153,000 this year. Why not invest $2500 of this and fix the problem? Nick
Current thread:
- Re: US patent 5473599, (continued)
- 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 Henning Brauer (Apr 23)
- Re: US patent 5473599 TGLASSEY (Apr 23)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (Apr 23)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Donald Eastlake (Apr 23)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (Apr 24)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Nick Hilliard (Apr 26)