Re: pf(4) status in 7.0-R

On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 09:46:07AM +0200, Kenneth Vestergaard Schmidt wrote:
> "Wilkinson, Alex" <alex.wilkinson_at_dsto.defence.gov.au> writes:
> >     >On that, note, it'd be nice with an update of carp(4), too, especially
> >     >the 'carpdev'-functionality. I'd probably even be able to get some money
> >     >to sponsor at least part of the work, if anybody was willing.
> >
> > What is the "'carpdev'-functionality" ?
> 
> Quoting http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=110229937028512&w=2 :
> 
>   "Here's the long-promised diff which allows you to specify a physical
>   interface 'carpdev' which the carp interface will bind to, and that
>   interface does not have to have an IP address on the same subnet (or at
>   all, in fact)."
> 
> We want to use it to replace a FreeVRRPd-setup, since FreeVRRPd seems to
> be pretty unmaintained (and possibly patent-encumbered).

Note that some people have concerns about CARP being patent-encumbered
(by Cisco) too.  Unless you know for sure if something is (or isn't)
encumbered, don't bother speculating about what is or isn't a problem.
If you're building a product from FreeBSD usign FreeVRRPd then you
should have already contact'd Cisco...

It's possible that lots of parts of FreeBSD are covered by patents
and we just don't really know the full situation until someone sends
an infringement notice and a court makes a decision.  If Micrsoft
have patents over SMB (for example) then any implementation of smbfs
would potentially violate that...and they are under no obligation to
tell us.

Picking on things because they're unmaintained is fine but
speculating on patent issues is a waste of time and energy.
Leave that to those soulless and lifeless laywer-vampire types.

Darren