[162297] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rajiv Asati (rajiva))
Mon Apr 8 15:21:43 2013
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: Chuck Anderson <cra@WPI.EDU>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 19:21:30 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20130408191809.GY3010@angus.ind.WPI.EDU>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Oh, it certainly is (per the IETF IPR rules).
Thanks for the clarity, Chuck.
Cheers,
Rajiv
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Anderson <cra@WPI.EDU>
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:18 PM
To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva@cisco.com>
Cc: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>, nanog list
<nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
>I think he means patent encumbered.
>
>On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 07:13:11PM +0000, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
>> Chris,
>>=20
>> Ummm=A9 you mean the IPv6 and IPv4 inter-dependency when you say IP
>> encumbered?
>>=20
>> If so, the answer is Yes. v6 addressing doesn't need to change to
>> accommodate this IPv4 A+P encoding.
>>=20
>>=20
>> Cheers,
>> Rajiv
>>=20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
>> Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 2:28 PM
>> To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva@cisco.com>
>> Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
>> Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
>>=20
>> >
>> >On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
>> ><rajiva@cisco.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Yes, MAP (T-Translation or E-Encap mode) is implemented on two regular
>> >routers that I know of - ASR9K and ASR1K. Without that, you are right
>>that
>> >MAP wouldn't have been as beneficial as claimed.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >glad it's cross platform... is it also IP encumbered so it'll remain
>>just
>> >as 'cross platform' ?
