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
>
>