Other than giving credit where credit is due (which us academics are big on), it probably won't matter much...we need to rethink the whole thing in the modern context anyway.
Would love to hear from other GROW-folks about interest or lack thereof in pursuing VA-style operational fixes to scaling! PF > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoff Huston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 9:40 AM > To: Paul Francis > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [GROW] FIB scaling through configuration > > I'm relying on a memory of a mail conversation from 16 years ago :-( > > Fortunately, the list archive is around > (ftp://munnari.oz.au/big-internet/list-archive) but I really > don't have the time to do the search though the archive to > find the thread - maybe someone else has both the time and > the motivation! > > Geoff > > > Paul Francis wrote: > > 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 withdrawn altogether.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
