Hello John You’ve got something dead wrong about the history of IPR, there’s certainly no idea of monopoly.
What we do when there’s market interest is write an RFC and RAND the rights. There is 25 years of IETF history to prove that. Another angle is that the change is in the host stack for the most part and we have no play in it. Without freedom for open source implementation the idea can not succeed. You may wonder why we go through the hassle and cost? The history of MPLS would certainly enlighten you on that. This is not a world where you can live without defensive weapons. No one yet answered me on the technical aspects. That kind of baffles me. Keep safe; Pascal > Le 25 mars 2022 à 03:17, John Gilmore <g...@toad.com> a écrit : > > Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote: >> I'm personally fond of the IP-in-IP variation that filed in 20+ years >> ago as US patent 7,356,031. > > No wonder -- you are listed as the co-inventor! > > Just the fact that it is patented (and the patent is still unexpired) > would make it a disfavored candidate for an Internet transition technology. > > It was not nice of y'all to try to get a monopoly over nesting headers > for making an overlay network that tunnels things to distant routers. > You have to certify that your work is original in order to even apply > for a patent. So, nobody had ever thought of that before y'all did? Really? > > John >
