Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:29:57 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: Matthew Grooms <mgrooms@seton.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: RE: NAT-T support for IPSec stack Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0508042027370.27151@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <42F27951.20808@seton.org> References: <42F27951.20808@seton.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.53.0508042027370.27151>