[162299] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Mon Apr 8 15:42:07 2013
In-Reply-To: <B14A62A57AB87D45BB6DD7D9D2B78F0B1160CE01@xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:41:54 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) <rajiva@cisco.com>wrot=
e:
> Oh, it certainly is (per the IETF IPR rules).
>
>
which rfcs? I can find a draft in softwire:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mdt-softwire-map-translation-01
and a reference to this in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_transition_mechanisms#MAP
which says: "...(MAP) is a Cisco IPv6 transition proposal..."
so.. err, we won't see this in juniper gear since:
1) not a standard
2) encumbered by IPR issues
weee!
> 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,
> >>
> >> Ummm=A9 you mean the IPv6 and IPv4 inter-dependency when you say IP
> >> encumbered?
> >>
> >> If so, the answer is Yes. v6 addressing doesn't need to change to
> >> accommodate this IPv4 A+P encoding.
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Rajiv
> >>
> >> -----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
> >>
> >> >
> >> >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 regula=
r
> >> >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' ?
>
>
