From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 4 20:30:10 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBB8E16A41F for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:30:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net) Received: from transport.cksoft.de (transport.cksoft.de [62.111.66.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FD8D43D45 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:30:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net) Received: from transport.cksoft.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by transport.cksoft.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF1D1FF9AB; Thu, 4 Aug 2005 22:30:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: by transport.cksoft.de (Postfix, from userid 66) id 936E21FF9A8; Thu, 4 Aug 2005 22:30:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail.int.zabbadoz.net (Postfix, from userid 1060) id C48171560B; Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:29:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.int.zabbadoz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA27415329; Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:29:57 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:29:57 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" X-X-Sender: bz@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net To: Matthew Grooms In-Reply-To: <42F27951.20808@seton.org> Message-ID: References: <42F27951.20808@seton.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS cksoft-s20020300-20031204bz on transport.cksoft.de Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: RE: NAT-T support for IPSec stack X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 20:30:11 -0000 On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Matthew Grooms wrote: > Not sure if this helps at all, but I did some searching a bit to read > others comments concerning the NAT-T / IPR debate. These two documents > get mentioned repeatedly and would appear to have something to do with > other vendors decision to adopt NAT-T support. > > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/MICROSOFT-NAT-Traversal.txt > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/SSH-NAT > > There was also some mention of a third claim but it was hard to find > details on the subject. Lastly, some people voiced concerns regarding ietf.org -> IPR -> Search -> NAT-T https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=88 ? > the application of NAT-T to IKEv2 as the first of the two disclosures > mention the IKEv1 RFC specifically where the other is quite broad. > > I can't imagine anyone is actively defending any patent claims here with > so many implementations of IKE / NAT-T out there. Would a group such as > the FreeBSD Foundation be able to help find answers to legal questions > such as this? I had hoped to get a clear answer after I heared that NetBSD had started on this but why does nobody send mail to those people listed as contacts and asks? -- Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT