Subject: A case of IPR-related block for free software?

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:39:00 +0200 (EET)

FYI,

Just as someone asked whether there are some real instances of IPR claims 
blocking free software implementations, I came across a discussion on 
IPsec NAT traversal.

It seems that IPsec NAT traversal cannot be implemented, even though as
SSH and ipunplugged offer RF terms for a specific field-of-use (note that
current implementations are all illegimate as use is granted only for IETF
stds track implementations), but Cisco and Microsoft do not.

I've not looked at the details, but it seems there are a lot of issues 
even in the most relevant technologies.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:32:48 +0200 (EET)
From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
To: bert hubert <[email-masked]>
Cc: John S. Denker <[email-masked]>, netdev <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ?completeness of IPsec feature-set

On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, bert hubert wrote:
> > I ask again:  Is there a document somewhere listing the set of desirable
> > features and the status thereof?  Or otherwise is there something to
> > reassure would-be users that a complete feature-set will be provided?
> 
> Right now, the kernel side of things is nearly complete. I sorely miss IPSEC
> NAT traversal which appears to be pretty patented.

Note that at least some IPR-claimants have decreed IPsec NAT-traversal a 
roualty free technology in interests to promote its use, see 
http://www.ietf.org/ipr

It seems SSH and ipunplugged offer RF terms (to the extent of implementing
the IETF standards track implementation, which it isn't at the moment)
while Microsoft and Cisco don't.

I'm particularly interested if this is considered to be a problem.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:59:08 +0100

Sorry, Pekka, this is far too partial and mixed up to
understand. Can somebody write up 2 or 3 pages being precise
about the details (which patents, which claims apply
to which parts of which standard, what licensing conditions
have been disclosed in public)?

   Brian

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:04:05 +0200 (EET)

On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Sorry, Pekka, this is far too partial and mixed up to understand. Can
> somebody write up 2 or 3 pages being precise about the details (which
> patents, which claims apply to which parts of which standard, what
> licensing conditions have been disclosed in public)?

I really don't know myself so I can't write the details. I just searched
www.ietf.org/ipr for "nat" and found four patents which seemed relevant to
IPsec NAT traversal.

Considering there aren't that many ways to cross the NAT, I'd think that 
all are quite probably also essential for the technology.