> I think we have told what happened in enough detail in the 3.5
^your version of
> commentary already posted to this thread.
randy, yet another of the hordes of vrrp users
* Bill Fenner [2014-05-08 20:41]:
> I was the IESG member responsible for the VRRP working group when the
> OpenBSD developer (I'm sorry, Henning, I forget if it was you or someone
> else)
wasn't me, as stated repeatedly I wasn't the one talking to the
standard bodies.
> came to a VRRP WG meetin
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Owen DeLong [2014-05-08 04:36]:
> > I don’t believe for one second that the IESG refused to deal with ‘em.
>
> you're free to believe whatever you want and ignore facts.
>
> > I do believe the IESG did not hand them everything they wanted
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:48:26AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
>
> awaiting your diff.
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=139955603603070&w=2
Kind regards,
Job
> On 8/05/2014, at 11:09 pm, Henning Brauer wrote:
>
> * Nick Hilliard [2014-05-08 13:03]:
>>> On 08/05/2014 11:25, Henning Brauer wrote:
>>> you shouldn't see issues but log spam.
>> maybe you misunderstand the problem. If you have vrrp and carp on the same
>> vlan, using the same vrrp group I
And that's why C. should use a more appropriate example to defend
his position.
By this thread, I suspect, that whoever dealt with those different
organization for OpenBSD & CARP, lacked the skills to accomplish the
task and got shut down for being an ass.
PS:
Being of the Ch
On 08/05/2014 12:09, Henning Brauer wrote:
> my switches seem to deal with that, wether they have special handling
> for that mac addr range or not i dunno.
I've seen this problem cause downtime on production networks.
fyi, it will probably work fine on hubs, but not on switches.
> again, stress
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 12:31:23PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Saku Ytti [2014-05-08 12:14]:
> > If OBSD can't afford MAC addresses but does not object to them in
> > principle, I
> > can give forever IRU for 256 MAC addresses to OBSD for 0USD one-time fee.
>
> when/if we change the mac add
* Nick Hilliard [2014-05-08 13:03]:
> On 08/05/2014 11:25, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > you shouldn't see issues but log spam.
> maybe you misunderstand the problem. If you have vrrp and carp on the same
> vlan, using the same vrrp group ID as VHID, then each virtual IP will arp
> for the same mac a
On 08/05/2014 11:25, Henning Brauer wrote:
> you shouldn't see issues but log spam.
maybe you misunderstand the problem. If you have vrrp and carp on the same
vlan, using the same vrrp group ID as VHID, then each virtual IP will arp
for the same mac address on that vlan.
This messes up the switc
* Saku Ytti [2014-05-08 12:14]:
> If OBSD can't afford MAC addresses but does not object to them in principle, I
> can give forever IRU for 256 MAC addresses to OBSD for 0USD one-time fee.
congratulations, that is far ahead of just whining.
when/if we change the mac addrs, the new range should b
* Eygene Ryabinkin [2014-05-08 11:12]:
> Henning,
> Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:35:00AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > * Blake Dunlap [2014-05-08 03:19]:
> > > Except for that whole mac address thing, that crashes networks...
> > this lie doesn't get any more true by repeating them over and over.
>
If OBSD can't afford MAC addresses but does not object to them in principle, I
can give forever IRU for 256 MAC addresses to OBSD for 0USD one-time fee.
--
++ytti
* Gary Buhrmaster [2014-05-08 00:43]:
> But (presuming no adjustments) the patent is now expired,
> and the OpenBSD team could now release CARPv2 (or
> whatever they decide to call it) which would implement the
> standard, should they wish to work and play well with the
> standards bodies and comm
* Owen DeLong [2014-05-08 04:36]:
> I don’t believe for one second that the IESG refused to deal with ‘em.
you're free to believe whatever you want and ignore facts.
> I do believe the IESG did not hand them everything they wanted on a
> silver platter in contravention of the established consens
* Owen DeLong [2014-05-08 07:16]:
> If they take their ball and go home, that's fine. The problem is that they
> seem to occasionally have their ball brought (by systems administrators) to
> networks where the network engineers are already running VRRP on routers (for
> example) and because:
>
* Robert Drake [2014-05-08 06:02]:
> On 5/7/2014 9:47 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
> Now, the bar for an informational RFC is pretty low. Especially for people
> who have written them before. Those people seem to think one is needed in
> this case so they might want to get started writing it. Then p
* Blake Dunlap [2014-05-08 03:19]:
> Except for that whole mac address thing, that crashes networks...
this lie doesn't get any more true by repeating them over and over.
--
Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org
BS Web Services GmbH, AG Hamburg HRB 128289, http://bsws.de
Full-Servic
On May 7, 2014, at 20:58 , Robert Drake wrote:
>
> On 5/7/2014 9:47 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>> The bar for an informational RFC is pretty darned low. I don't see
>> anything in the datagram nature of "i'm alive, don't pull the trigger
>> yet" that would preclude a UDP packet rather than naked
On 5/7/2014 9:47 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
The bar for an informational RFC is pretty darned low. I don't see
anything in the datagram nature of "i'm alive, don't pull the trigger
yet" that would preclude a UDP packet rather than naked IP. Hell,
since it's not supposed to leave the LAN, one coul
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:33:45PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On May 7, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
> > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 05:57:01PM -0400, David Conrad wrote:
> >> However, assume that the OpenBSD developers did document their protocol
> >> and requested an IESG action and was ref
On May 7, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 05:57:01PM -0400, David Conrad wrote:
>> However, assume that the OpenBSD developers did document their protocol
>> and requested an IESG action and was refused. Do you believe that would
>> justify squatting on an already
Notwithstanding any legitimate or illegitimate grievance associated with
the sordid history of carp / vrrp / the us patent system / BSD forks
and their respective participants.
It's time to take a long weekend.
thanks
joel
On 5/7/14, 8:47 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>
> Matt Palmer writes:
>
>>
Matt Palmer writes:
> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 05:57:01PM -0400, David Conrad wrote:
>> However, assume that the OpenBSD developers did document their protocol
>> and requested an IESG action and was refused. Do you believe that would
>> justify squatting on an already assigned number?
>
> I'm g
This CARP thing is the best troll I've seen yet. Over a decade old and people
are still on about it.
-Laszlo
On May 8, 2014, at 1:15 AM, Blake Dunlap wrote:
> Except for that whole mac address thing, that crashes networks...
>
> -Blake
>
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Constantine A. Mur
On May 7, 2014, at 12:36 AM, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote:
> VRRP/HSRP comes from Cisco (well, VRRP is RFC'ed for some time, but
> its origin is Cisco too),
I’m sorry, but this is 100% incorrect.
HSRP comes from Cisco, but Cisco originally decided to not release the protocol
to the IETF. [Stup
Except for that whole mac address thing, that crashes networks...
-Blake
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
wrote:
> On 7 May 2014 17:56, wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 May 2014 17:10:32 -0700, "Constantine A. Murenin" said:
>>
>>> Also, would you please be so kind as to finally expl
On 7 May 2014 17:56, wrote:
> On Wed, 07 May 2014 17:10:32 -0700, "Constantine A. Murenin" said:
>
>> Also, would you please be so kind as to finally explain to us why
>> Google can squat on the https port with SPDY,
>
> Because it doesn't squat on the port. It politely asks "Do you speak SPDY,
On Wed, 07 May 2014 17:10:32 -0700, "Constantine A. Murenin" said:
> Also, would you please be so kind as to finally explain to us why
> Google can squat on the https port with SPDY,
Because it doesn't squat on the port. It politely asks "Do you speak SPDY,
or just https?" and then listens to wh
On 7 May 2014 15:09, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> CARP uses a VRRP version number that has not been defined by VRRP,
>> hence there is no conflict there, either. The link from the quote
>> above has a quote from Henning.
>
> Which means that in addition to squatting on the VRRP port,
VRRP protocol numb
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 05:57:01PM -0400, David Conrad wrote:
> However, assume that the OpenBSD developers did document their protocol
> and requested an IESG action and was refused. Do you believe that would
> justify squatting on an already assigned number?
I'm going to go with "yes", just to
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>
> Eygene Ryabinkin writes:
>
>> If you hadn't seen the cases when same VRIDs in the same network were
>> used for both VRRP and CARP doesn't mean that they aren't occurring in
>> the real world. We use CARP and VRRP quite extensively and when
> CARP uses a VRRP version number that has not been defined by VRRP,
> hence there is no conflict there, either. The link from the quote
> above has a quote from Henning.
Which means that in addition to squatting on the VRRP port, they are also
squatting on a version number that I'm betting the
On May 6, 2014, at 23:44 , Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Jared Mauch [2014-05-07 03:54]:
>> That the "BSD" community sometimes doesn't play well with others
>
> Translation: not bowing for corporate US america.
> Quite proudly so.
Uh, no, Translation: Self appointed vigilantes with no regard for
Todd,
On May 7, 2014, at 4:44 PM, TGLASSEY wrote:
> The issue Jared is needing a consensus in a community where that may be
> impossible to achieve because of differing agendas - so does that mean that
> the protocol should not exist because the IETF would not grant it credence?
> Interesting.
Hi,
TGLASSEY wrote:
> The issue Jared is needing a consensus in a community where that may be
> impossible to achieve because of differing agendas - so does that mean
> that the protocol should not exist because the IETF would not grant it
> credence? Interesting.
There are just 256 numbers a
The issue Jared is needing a consensus in a community where that may be
impossible to achieve because of differing agendas - so does that mean
that the protocol should not exist because the IETF would not grant it
credence? Interesting.
Todd
On 5/6/2014 6:51 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On May 6, 2
Eygene Ryabinkin writes:
> If you hadn't seen the cases when same VRIDs in the same network were
> used for both VRRP and CARP doesn't mean that they aren't occurring in
> the real world. We use CARP and VRRP quite extensively and when we
> first were hit by this issue, it was not that funny.
Constantine,
Tue, May 06, 2014 at 06:11:04PM -0700, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 6 May 2014 15:17, David Conrad wrote:
> > Except it wasn't useless: it was, in fact, in use by VRRP.
> > Further, the OpenBSD developers chose to squat on 240 for pfsync -
> > a number that has not yet been all
* Jared Mauch [2014-05-07 03:54]:
> That the "BSD" community sometimes doesn't play well with others
Translation: not bowing for corporate US america.
Quite proudly so.
> certainly won't fess up when they make a mistake
wrong. I have no problem admitting mistakes. And that's true for most
of ou
* David Conrad [2014-05-07 00:21]:
> The fact that OpenBSD developers continue to defend this choice is
> one reason why I won't run OpenBSD (or CARP).
We won't miss you.
And besides, you're running plenty of our code every day. It's probaby
in your pocket right now.
> > Any complaints for Goo
Jared Mauch wrote:
> > Your point being?
>
> That the "BSD" community sometimes doesn't play well with others,
> and certainly won't fess up when they make a mistake and cause
> collateral damage.
The "BSD" community is larger than OpenBSD, and larger than Theo's
ego, much to said persons disapp
> So, then the only problem, perhaps, is that noone has apparently
> bothered to explicitly document that both VRRP and CARP use
> 00:00:5e:00:01:xx MAC addresses, and that the "xx" part comes from the
> "Virtual Router IDentifier (VRID)" in VRRP and "virtual host ID
> (VHID)" in CARP, providing a
On 6 May 2014 18:51, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On May 6, 2014, at 9:11 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>
>> On 6 May 2014 15:17, David Conrad wrote:
>>> Constantine,
>>>
>>> On May 6, 2014, at 4:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
>>> wrote:
Any complaints for Google using the https port 443 for
On May 6, 2014, at 9:11 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 6 May 2014 15:17, David Conrad wrote:
>> Constantine,
>>
>> On May 6, 2014, at 4:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
>> wrote:
Protocol 112 was assigned by IANA for VRRP in 1998.
When did OpenBSD choose to squat on 112?
On 6 May 2014 15:17, David Conrad wrote:
> Constantine,
>
> On May 6, 2014, at 4:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>>> Protocol 112 was assigned by IANA for VRRP in 1998.
>>>
>>> When did OpenBSD choose to squat on 112?
>>
>> If you don't use it, you lose it.
>
> Are you suggesting no one is r
Constantine,
On May 6, 2014, at 4:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>> Protocol 112 was assigned by IANA for VRRP in 1998.
>>
>> When did OpenBSD choose to squat on 112?
>
> If you don't use it, you lose it.
Are you suggesting no one is running VRRP? Surprising given RFC 5798.
By the way,
On 6 May 2014 12:31, David Conrad wrote:
> Constantine,
>
> On May 6, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Constantine A. Murenin
> wrote:
>> As a final note of course, when we petitioned IANA, the IETF body
>> regulating "official" internet protocol numbers, to give us numbers for
>> CARP and pfsyn
Constantine,
On May 6, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> As a final note of course, when we petitioned IANA, the IETF body
> regulating "official" internet protocol numbers, to give us numbers for
> CARP and pfsync our request was denied. Apparently we had failed to
On 6 May 2014 07:56, wrote:
> On Tue, 06 May 2014 09:22:37 +0200, Henning Brauer said:
>> * Nick Hilliard [2014-04-26 22:56]:
>> > the situation was created by the openbsd team, not the ieee, the ietf or
>> > iana.
>>
>> that's nothing short of a lie.
>
> Umm.. remind me who chose the conflictin
On Apr 26, 2014, at 1:55 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> the situation was created by the openbsd team, not the ieee, the ietf or
> iana. You squatted on an existing oui assignment used by an equivalent
> protocol and in doing this, you created a long term problem with no
> possible solution other t
On Tue, 06 May 2014 09:22:37 +0200, Henning Brauer said:
> * Nick Hilliard [2014-04-26 22:56]:
> > the situation was created by the openbsd team, not the ieee, the ietf or
> > iana.
>
> that's nothing short of a lie.
Umm.. remind me who chose the conflicting value and shipped product that used
it
* Nick Hilliard [2014-04-26 22:56]:
> the situation was created by the openbsd team, not the ieee, the ietf or
> iana.
that's nothing short of a lie.
> The openbsd foundation raised $153,000 this year. Why not invest $2500 of
> this and fix the problem?
good luck finding another project of our
On 23/04/2014 17:47, Henning Brauer wrote:
> fortunately this obviously isn't a big problem in practice, based on
> the fact that we don't get any complaints/reports in that direction.
> still would be way micer if that situation had been created in the
> first place, but as said - we weren't given
* Donald Eastlake [2014-04-23 21:46]:
> The process for applying
> for MAC addresses under the IANA OUI was regularized in RFC 5342,
> since updated to and replaced by RFC 7042. See
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7042.txt. Perhaps you were trying
> before RFC 5342?
very possible.
As I have s
Hi,
See below
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Paul WALL [2014-04-22 19:30]:
>> Both CARP and VRRP use virtual router MAC addresses that start with
>> 00:00:5e. This organizational unique identifier (OUI) is assigned to
>> IANA, not OpenBSD or a related project. The
* TGLASSEY [2014-04-23 19:13]:
> in fact CARP clearly is an infringement [of the patent].
that's YOUR analysis, and it contradicts ours and the legal advice we
got, so I'll ignore it.
Irrelevant anyway, see subject - expired.
--
Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org
BS Web Services
Henning I understand your work is important - and that its open source
but that is part of the problem with global patent law today. No one
wants it around when their works are impacted by it. But patent
publications are binding under the treaties and in fact CARP clearly is
an infringement. Th
* Paul WALL [2014-04-22 19:30]:
> Both CARP and VRRP use virtual router MAC addresses that start with
> 00:00:5e. This organizational unique identifier (OUI) is assigned to
> IANA, not OpenBSD or a related project. The CARP authors could have
> gotten their own from IEEE. OUIs are not free but
Imitation is the highest form of flattery. ;)
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
Original message
From: Steve Clark
Date: 04/22/2014 11:48 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: Paul WALL
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: US patent 5473599
On 04/22/2014 01:30 PM, Paul WALL wrote:
>
On 04/22/2014 01:30 PM, Paul WALL wrote:
On Tuesday, April 22, 2014, Henning Brauer wrote:
I won't waste time on your uninformed ramblings, you have the facts
plain wrong. There is enough material on the net for everybody to read
up on what happened.
"carp causing outages" however is nothing
On Tuesday, April 22, 2014, Henning Brauer wrote:
> I won't waste time on your uninformed ramblings, you have the facts
> plain wrong. There is enough material on the net for everybody to read
> up on what happened.
>
> "carp causing outages" however is nothing short of a lie. carp
> announces it
* Ryan Shea [2014-04-22 16:24]:
> along with OpenNTPd, OpenBGPd - which
> probably have similar standards non-compliance
I wrote both of them, they are as standards compliant as it gets.
we would have implemented vrrp if it hadn't been patent encumbered.
in the end, that was even good, since ca
I won't waste time on your uninformed ramblings, you have the facts
plain wrong. There is enough material on the net for everybody to read
up on what happened.
"carp causing outages" however is nothing short of a lie. carp
announces itself as vrrp version 3. anything trying to parse it as
vrrp2 wi
* Nick Hilliard [2014-04-22 15:33]:
> On 22/04/2014 12:31, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > it does NOT cover carp, not at all.
> that is a political statement rather than a legal opinion. If you read the
> patent, it's pretty obvious that when you have a group of carp-enabled
> devices providing a stab
On Tuesday, April 22, 2014, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Nick Hilliard > [2014-04-22 10:29]:
> > ... turns 20 today.
> >
> > This is the patent which covers hsrp, vrrp, many applications of carp and
> > some other vendor-specific standby protocols.
>
> it does NOT cover carp, not at all. carp was ca
On 22/04/2014 12:31, Henning Brauer wrote:
> it does NOT cover carp, not at all.
that is a political statement rather than a legal opinion. If you read the
patent, it's pretty obvious that when you have a group of carp-enabled
devices providing a stable gateway IP address, and these devices are
r
* Nick Hilliard [2014-04-22 10:29]:
> ... turns 20 today.
>
> This is the patent which covers hsrp, vrrp, many applications of carp and
> some other vendor-specific standby protocols.
it does NOT cover carp, not at all. carp was carefully designed to
specifically avoid that.
--
Henning Brauer,
... turns 20 today.
This is the patent which covers hsrp, vrrp, many applications of carp and
some other vendor-specific standby protocols. Assuming no term
adjustments, 20 years is the normal term for US patents so unless there's
been any adjustments / continuations, probably this patent is now
69 matches
Mail list logo
