Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-grand>

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I don't really understand how there is IPR that applies, GRAND is the same
idea as IPv4 Gratuitous ARP, just sent to the set of routers on link rather
than all nodes i.e. the idea of multicast.

I don't know if this sort of problem had shown up in IPv4, however the
GRAND method could be implemented for IPv4 using GARP and the IPv4 all
routers 224.0.0.2 multicast address.

Regards,
Mark.


On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, 23:32 Eric Vyncke (evyncke), <evyncke=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Fernando,
>
> <without any hat>
>
> Interesting remark as the IPR from Ericsson (Joel Halpern) on Jen's
> individual I-D has not (yet?) been transferred to the WG document per:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-6man-grand
>
> But, knowing Ericsson (one big open-standard supporter), and even if I am
> not a lawyer (!), I would not mind too much. It is probably the usual IPR
> statement used at IETF by open-standard companies: basically, something
> such as "feel free to use my IPR as long as I may use yours".
>
> Having said this, you have an acute view __
>
> -éric
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 <[e-mail]> on behalf of Fernando Gont <
> [e-mail]>
> Date: Saturday, 18 July 2020 at 10:40
> To: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>, IPv6 List <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-grand>
>
>     Folks,
>
>     On 15/7/20 14:16, Bob Hinden wrote:
>     > Hello,
>     >
>     > This message starts a new two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on
> advancing:
>     >
>     >          Title:    Gratuitous Neighbor Discovery: Creating Neighbor
> Cache Entries on First-
>     >                    Hop Routers
>     >          Author:   Jen Linkova
>     >   Filename: draft-ietf-6man-grand-00
>     >   Pages:    11
>     >   Date:     March 9, 2020
>     >
>     >         https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-grand
>     >
>     > as a Proposed Standard.
>
>     I will review this document shortly (I think I reviewed some version
> of
>     it already).
>
>     That said, I'm curious about the possible implications of the
> following
>     IPR, in particular "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All
>     Implementers with Possible Royalty/Fee"..
>
>     Could this potentially mean that eventually some implementations might
>     need to pay a Royalty/Fee to be fully compliant with the Neighbor
>     Discovery spec?
>
>     I don't remember this kind of thing being discussed in 6man before,
> but
>     other wgs I have participated in did consider this tihngs.
>
>     Thoughts?
>
>     Thanks,
>     --
>     Fernando Gont
>     SI6 Networks
>     e-mail: [e-mail]
>     PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>
>
>
>
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>