nanog mailing list archives
Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:39:37 -0500
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Abhishek Verma <abhishekv.verma () gmail com> wrote:
Is interop the only issue because of which most ideas get released into IETF? I guess interop is *an* issue since nobody wants a single vendor network.
I would point you at the 14+ frame-relay networks (that can't interconnect in a meaningful manner) that MCI (still, mostly) runs today... go-go-vendor-proprietary solutions!! -chris
Current thread:
- Patents, IETF and Network Operators Abhishek Verma (Jan 21)
- Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators Christopher Morrow (Jan 21)
- Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators Jorge Amodio (Jan 21)
- Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators Scott Brim (Jan 21)
- Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators Jorge Amodio (Jan 21)
- Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators Scott Brim (Jan 21)
- Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators Shane Ronan (Jan 21)
- Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators Jorge Amodio (Jan 21)
- RE: Patents, IETF and Network Operators George Bonser (Jan 21)
- Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators Jorge Amodio (Jan 21)
- Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators Steven Bellovin (Jan 21)
- Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators Randy Bush (Jan 21)