[162301] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rajiv Asati (rajiva))
Mon Apr 8 15:48:53 2013
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 19:48:41 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLab6=wU3_1snrc_si+Fyhg0tpGz9s4mL3CMo3GN2k7BMvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Chris,
That's an incorrect draft pointer. Here is the correct one -
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map
tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-t
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp
And no, Cisco has no IPR on MAP wrt the above drafts.
Cheers,
Rajiv
PS: Please do note that the IPRs mostly get nullified once they are
through the IETF standards process.
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:41 PM
To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva@cisco.com>
Cc: Chuck Anderson <cra@WPI.EDU>, nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
>
>
>
>On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
><rajiva@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>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!
>=20
>
>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 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' ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
