Thanks. I'm still very curious about what went on in Big-I that predates this. I know lots of ideas were thrown around, and of course some of them involved tunneling, but I don't recall any that were very similar to VA. In any event, equipment in the field has evolved enough that this can now be done, so good to have a fresh look.
PF > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoff Huston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 8:14 AM > To: Paul Francis > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [GROW] FIB scaling through configuration > > I which case I have no further objection for this work to be > taken on by GROW - indeed, given this response from Paul I > support this being taken on by GROW. > > Thanks very much Paul for your response. > > Geoff > > > Paul Francis wrote: > > You know, I'm being stupid about this. The IPR was established a > > while back to keep my options open for doing a startup. I've long > > since given up on that idea, so we'll make the IPR unrestricted and > > unencumbered, and I'll look into having the IPR claim > withdrawn altogether. > > > > Sorry for the run around. > > > > PF > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > *From:* Geoff Huston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > *Sent:* Wed 5/28/2008 3:51 AM > > *To:* Paul Francis > > *Cc:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [GROW] FIB scaling through configuration > > > > > I need to point out that Cornell owns IPR on this. > > > > Even though this precise approach was described and > discussed in the > > Big-Internet mailing list back in 1992? For those with > memories that > > extend back to then such claims of proprietary ownership of > the same > > concept some 16 years later appear to be somewhat ambitious. > > > > [As a side note, this IPR stuff is getting to be overwhelming in a > > number of ways. I have an increasing sympathy for the view that > > espouses that open standards should work within a scope of > describing > > openly available unencumbered technology, and that private > ownership > > of a concept with restrictions and encumberences on third party use > > should take it out of the public realm of open standardisation. But > > thats a topic for another mailing list of course!] > > > > In any case, for the record, I oppose bringing this IPR-encumbered > > work into GROW. If Cornell are prepared to make a firm > undertaking to > > the IETF in the usual manner of unrestricted and > unencumbered access, > > or are prepared to withdraw their IPR claim (well, I can > dream!), then > > my opposition to this proposal for GROW to take on this > approach may change. > > > > regards, > > > > Geoff > > > > _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
