From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 4 20:18:15 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA50316A41F for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:18:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from MGrooms@seton.org) Received: from mx2-out.seton.org (mx2-out.seton.org [65.118.63.241]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6224343D48 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:18:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from MGrooms@seton.org) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mx2-out.seton.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 896DE8D1 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2005 15:18:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mx2-out.seton.org ([10.21.254.241]) by localhost (mx2 [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 21919-24 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2005 15:18:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ausexfe02.seton.org (unknown [10.20.10.186]) by mx2-out.seton.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF4A887 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2005 15:18:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [10.20.160.190] ([10.20.160.190]) by ausexfe02.seton.org with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 4 Aug 2005 15:18:14 -0500 Message-ID: <42F27951.20808@seton.org> Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 15:23:45 -0500 From: Matthew Grooms Organization: Seton Healthcare Network User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.5 (Windows/20050711) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Aug 2005 20:18:14.0195 (UTC) FILETIME=[A47BC830:01C59931] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at seton.org Subject: RE: NAT-T support for IPSec stack X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 20:18:15 -0000 Not sure if this helps at all, but I did some searching a bit to read others comments concerning the NAT-T / IPR debate. These two documents get mentioned repeatedly and would appear to have something to do with other vendors decision to adopt NAT-T support. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/MICROSOFT-NAT-Traversal.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/SSH-NAT 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 the application of NAT-T to IKEv2 as the first of the two disclosures mention the IKEv1 RFC specifically where the other is quite broad. I can't imagine anyone is actively defending any patent claims here with so many implementations of IKE / NAT-T out there. Would a group such as the FreeBSD Foundation be able to help find answers to legal questions such as this? reference : www.google.com -> nat-t patent ipsec -Matthew