Xbox one uses IPv6

[#1]

Licensing? IPv6 is an open de facto standard.

[#2]

Quote from: MJN

Licensing? IPv6 is an open de facto standard.

@'MJN' - you seem surprised at that suggestion !,  did you see who introduced that thought nonsense in Reply #8 ? -

Quote from: nanotm

the cynic in me would lean towards them owning the protocol or otherwise gaining licence fees from its use

[#3]

@ MJN
implementation licencing like Microsoft's proprietary Teredo tunnel system (which requires a licence) EA has a version cisco has a version
because right now its a way to get income from people making kit that complies operate on the legacy network ......
not licencing as making people pay to use ipv6 standard ......

sorry thought you were getting on the confusing bandwagon

[#4]

Oh dear, is this thread descending into 'nanotm' speculation again ?
Do you really think Sony would choose to use a proprietary IPv6 tunneling protocol, when there are open alternatives ?

[#5]

No, Nanotm. Whilst Teredo was created by Microsoft it was passed and published through the IETF as an open standard. It does not require a licence to implement.
There are no seperate 'versions'. There's a standard specification and it is widely implemented.
PLEASE STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION

[#6]

if someone else made it there will be a licence fee involved, even gpl code requires businesses to buy a licence for there commercial use.
sony will most likely develop there own version but given the way they got burned previously they might not be willing to do that prior to release and instead do it later via firmware updates
@MJN
taken from the bottom of the document

Quote

Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors   retain all their rights.   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

nowhere does it state they don't own licencing rights to it, it does say they want people to use there version as an internet standard

[#7]

further to my last http://ftp://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/microsoft-ipr-draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo.txt
an extract of which is

Quote

_X__ Royalty-Free, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers Check here if this licensing declaration is limited solely to standards-track IETF documents _X__

which states there clearly wanting cash for its use but not for ietf document distribution and not from people who use it purely to provide support for the standard, which means anyone like Sony who uses it will be paying for it

[#8]

You're not even reading what you're quoting!
Anyone is free to provide/consume a Teredo service. There are no royalties to be paid.

[#9]

Quote from: nanotm

sony will most likely develop there own version but given the way they got burned previously they might not be willing to do that prior to release and instead do it later via firmware updates

Sigh !,  no they won't because that would be stupid. 

[#10]

Quote from: nanotm

even gpl code requires businesses to buy a licence for there commercial use.

As per usual from nanotm, this is incorrect.