On Nov 9, 2009, at 16:34, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Ah, you mean the utilisation of NAT covered by US Patent 5371852?
Yes, the IBM cluster patent. I see that IBM issued an IPR disclosure to IETF for that patent, but has only promised to grant RAND licenses for VRRP usage. The more general application of the invention that Mr. Engel references appears not to be expressly declared. <http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/IPR/ibm-rfc2338-rfc2787.txt> Yes, we are well and truly off topic now. ObTopic: the NAT66 draft doesn't help address either of the two concerns Mr. Engel raised, i.e. neither the high availability consideration, nor the issue with misconfigured NAT failure tending toward "closed" rather than "open" configurations. A misconfigured NAT66 middlebox, being a symmetric NAT, is just as likely to fail "open" as "closed" from his perspective. I'll leave it to the authors of the NAT66 draft to respond. -- james woodyatt <[email protected]> member of technical staff, communications engineering _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
