pptp

Anybody know off hand what the rfc number for PPTP is? The rfc editor is
being stubborn at www.rfc-editor.org and refuses to show me the rfc, it
thinks it doesn't exist.

Re: pptp

Bill Cunningham wrote:
> Anybody know off hand what the rfc number for PPTP is? The rfc editor is
> being stubborn at www.rfc-editor.org and refuses to show me the rfc, it
> thinks it doesn't exist.

RFC 2637:

   http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2637.txt

-Archie

__________________________________________________________________________
Archie Cobbs     *     Packet Design     *     http://www.packetdesign.com

Re: PPP L2TP legal status

James Carlson wrote:
> 
> Glen Zorn writes:
> > L2TP is is sole subject of RFC 2661.  Cisco holds no IPR WRT L2TP, nor does
> > it license it to or from anybody.
> 
> I would very much like to hear a clear statement from Cisco's lawyers
> on this subject.  The last such public communication that I know of
> was this one:
> 
>         http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/CISCO-L2TP
> 
> This certainly leaves the situation a lot less clear than you seem to
> be indicating, at least to me.
> 
> For what it's worth, I personally know several folks who've been
> contacted by lawyers involved in L2TP IPR litigation (including
> myself), and who are thus quite adverse to implementing any part of
> that standard for that reason.  Talking to lawyers about IPR is not an
> enjoyable part of the job.  If Cisco is not pursuing these claims,
> then I think that'd be wonderful news to make known more widely so
> that the standard can become more widely used.
> 
I believe that it is public knowledge (and not in violation of any NDA) 
that Cisco has been pursuing claims against Alcatel for over 3 years now.  

The case has passed factual discovery, is in expert depositions, and is 
expected to go to trial in the near future. 
--

-- 
William Allen Simpson

Re: PPP

Frank Cusack wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2002 at 10:00:33PM -0500, Barney Wolff wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 27, 2002 at 06:45:10PM -0800, Frank Cusack wrote:
> > > 
> > > PPTP is not proprietary.  L2TP is, though.
> > 
> > You seem to have a very odd definition of proprietary.  Both protocols
> > are published, but PPTP is strictly under Microsoft's control, while
> > L2TP is a standards-track IETF effort.  If sourceforge is your criterion,
> > both protocols are there.
> 
> Yes, I guess I'm using a different (incorrect) definition of proprietary.
> What I really meant was, PPTP is freely implementable.  L2TP is not.
> 
> I can write and publish an implementation of PPTP, without being beholden
> to Microsoft whereas I must license L2TP from Cisco.  Of course, please
> correct me if Cisco has granted no-cost license terms to anyone for L2TP.

I don't think the latter paragraphs describe the situation.  Cisco has
a patent which mentions neither PPTP nor L2TP, but which patents an
application for which either PPTP or L2TP might be used.  As such the
patent, if it applies at all, applies equally to PPTP and L2TP when
either is used for the application described in the patent's claims.
PPTP is no less encumbered by this patent than L2TP.

What this amounts to is that if your use of PPTP doesn't infringe on this
patent then using L2TP for the same thing won't either, while if your
use of L2TP does infringe on this patent then changing the protocol
to PPTP won't save you.  The patent provides no particular reason to
prefer one protocol over the other since, for applications which

Re: PPP

On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 12:54:34PM -0800, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> If I had to guess (I'm far from a lawyer) I suspect the patent claims
> apply not at all when the implementation does what RFC 3193 defines to
> be "Voluntary Tunneling", with the (LAC,PAC) residing on the client
> machine, but may apply when the implementation does "Compulsory
> Tunneling" with the LAC residing in the NAS.

Is it possible to implement a LNS which can only terminate voluntary
mode tunnels?

> It is getting progressively harder to do anything at all without
> the risk of running afoul with someone's lawyers

:~(

/fc

RE: PPP

> On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 12:54:34PM -0800, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> > If I had to guess (I'm far from a lawyer) I suspect the patent claims
> > apply not at all when the implementation does what RFC 3193 defines to
> > be "Voluntary Tunneling", with the (LAC,PAC) residing on the client
> > machine, but may apply when the implementation does "Compulsory
> > Tunneling" with the LAC residing in the NAS.
>
> Is it possible to implement a LNS which can only terminate voluntary
> mode tunnels?
>
> > It is getting progressively harder to do anything at all without
> > the risk of running afoul with someone's lawyers
>
> :~(

As I understand it, it's actually very easy to avoid running afoul of
Cisco's patent lawyers: just don't sue Cisco over your own IPR.  I am
obviously not a lawyer, either., but AFAIK Cisco only uses its patents in a
defensive manner, as is the case w/Alcatel.

>
> /fc
>
>

PWG-ANNOUNCE> June/July Meeting

PWG-ANNOUNCE> LAST CALL for PWG PROPOSED IPP "-actual" attributes

RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> June/July Meeting

Fw: PWG-ANNOUNCE> June/July Meeting