Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 14:53:30 -0600 From: Jim Thompson <jim@netgate.com> To: Nicolas MASSE <Nicolas.MASSE@stormshield.eu> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Any reason to not implement VRRP in FreeBSD? Message-ID: <A28487F9-82F9-4109-A5FD-6AFAA8CAF0A1@netgate.com> In-Reply-To: <3f0f88f77e77faf559607d0a8117aea252b7b5c0.camel@stormshield.eu> References: <3f0f88f77e77faf559607d0a8117aea252b7b5c0.camel@stormshield.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
FreeBSD has always been free to have a VRRP implementation. =20 The smoke and mirrors FUD managed to prevent same to this point, but it was a= lways FUD.=20 Jim > On Jan 26, 2023, at 10:08 AM, Nicolas MASSE <Nicolas.MASSE@stormshield.eu>= wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFHi all, >=20 > Currently, i'm investigating solutions in order to ensure some > redundancy at the IP level. More specifically, i'm looking into CARP and > VRRP. > As i'm having a look at the CARP implementation, one question did arise: > Is there currently any reason to not have an implementation of VRRP > inside FreeBSD? > I understand that this made sense at a time due to CISCO patents, but > according to Wikipedia, it seems that those patents did expire some > years ago. > So, would there still be legal issues about this or is FreeBSD now free > to have its own VRRP implementation? >=20 > Regards, > Nicolas Masse. >=20 >=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A28487F9-82F9-4109-A5FD-6AFAA8CAF0A1>