Hi, Dino:
1) Re: Ur. Pt. 1) " ... hide the 240 addresses then you translate.
": I do not understand the terminology "translate" here. Within a
RAN, all packets use the basic Source and Destination address fields in
the IP header to carry the 240/4 addresses. Simple as that. I believe
that this is how all on-premises networks operate with one of the three
private netblocks. There is no "translate", correct?
2) Re: Ur. Pt. 1) " ... your solution is like 128T’s session/flow
based routers, ... ": Again, I have no clue about this terminology.
My apologies for not being able to respond.
3) Re: Ur. Pt. 2) " ... might imply non-proprietary?... ": This
is an incorrect interpretation of our EzIP work. Almost every and any
thing "new" these days are based on something in existence somewhere,
except perhaps Einstein's E=MC^2 related Theory of Relativity. A more
down-to-the-earth case would be Edison's invention of the incandescent
light bulb.
So, patent claims are normally disclosed as "discovery", not
invention. More often than not, it is the "novel" combination of the
existing information known by some, but unknown by others that qualifies
to be claimed as patent-able. One basic test of this is whether the
discovery is "obvious". This is very tricky, because to get a claim
granted, the applicant must describe the discovery sufficiently clear in
detail so that others familiar with the skill in the same field can
replicate (called the requirement of teaching the general public). These
two requirements are fundamentally contradicting to each other. Finding
the proper compromise is the challenge in patent prosecution.
One of my patent applications got into this chicken-or-egg loop
after I responded to several cycles of Office Actions (OA) for
clarifications. The Examiner finally stated that he understood the
subject matter now, but it was "obvious". So, he denied to grant the
patent. Since I had used up the normal OA cycles, it was like a dead
end. In desperation, I wrote back by saying since it took so much effort
to make him understand the concept, even without revising the
specifications, the discovery must be "not obvious". The next
correspondence from USPTO informed me that the patent was granted!
For the current EzIP patent application, I was ready to tell the
examiner how much ridicules that I received over online forums as the
proof that it was not obvious. But, he could not find any prior art even
vaguely related to our disclosure. Instead, he started to give me a hard
time on my writing style and document organization format issues. These
consumed up the allowed OA cycles. So, I am confident that US Pat. No.
11,159,425 does qualify to be proprietary.
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-26 22:39)
On 2022-03-26 18:56, Dino Farinacci wrote:
1) " ... but overlay routers do not drop packets to/from
240.0.0.0/4 addresses. ... encapsulated packets ... ": For the
first part, correct. All SPRs do similarly, because the entire RAN is
an overlay network, although appears as a private network to the
Internet core. For the second pat, packets running around a RAN are
using the basic IPv4 header. There is no encapsulation, at all.
If you do not encapsulate and can hide the 240 addresses then you
translate. Which means your solution is like 128T’s session/flow based
routers, that also create an overlay.
2) Re: Ur. Pt. 3): Yes, pieces of EzIP ideas and concepts have
been around here and there. What EzIP does is to put them together in
a concise and consistent manner to create a new networking landscape.
That sounds good. And might imply non-proprietary?
Dino
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
