US patent 5473599
Constantine A. Murenin
mureninc at gmail.com
Thu May 8 00:10:32 UTC 2014
On 7 May 2014 15:09, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> CARP uses a VRRP version number that has not been defined by VRRP,
>> hence there is no conflict there, either. The link from the quote
>> above has a quote from Henning.
> Which means that in addition to squatting on the VRRP port,
VRRP protocol number, not port number.
# fgrep carp /etc/protocols
carp 112 CARP vrrp # Common Address Redundancy Protocol
For the protocol which doesn't even leave the LAN.
> they are also squatting on a version number that I'm betting the IETF did not grant to them for that purpose and may use for another purpose at a later date.
Yeah, right! How dare they?! The OpenBSD Project should have just
closed the shop instead of providing an alternative and free virtual
router/host redundancy protocol when Cisco said they're going to sue
them if they implement the VRRP from the standards track!
Who cares about the freedom of religion or expression? Everyone has
to be Catholic and X, since that's what the state says. You can't
even be an atheist or Y in the privacy of your own home and on your
own LAN! Prohibited by IETF, since they might come over and take out
Also, would you please be so kind as to finally explain to us why
Google can squat on the https port with SPDY, but OpenBSD cannot squat
on the VRRP protocol with CARP? Especially since in the case of CARP,
all communication is limited to a LAN segment? I mean, it is as if
this non-standards-compliant-but-free CARP is being forced down your
throat! Please enlighten us all on who's forcing CARP upon you.
More information about the NANOG