Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:39:56 -0500 From: Matthew Grooms <mgrooms@seton.org> To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NAT-T support for IPSec stack Message-ID: <42F28B2C.40402@seton.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0508042027370.27151@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <42F27951.20808@seton.org> <Pine.BSF.4.53.0508042027370.27151@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Matthew Grooms wrote: > >>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 > > ? > Software patents suck. The one I was referring to concerned a third claim also by Microsoft regarding IKEv2. As I said before, I found mention of ( by an ssh.com employee ) but no further details. Here is the reference ... http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-ipsec/03.ipsec/msg01797.html > > 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? > Sorry man, I was just trying to be helpful. Do you mean the contacts listed along with the IP disclosures? -Matthew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42F28B2C.40402>