Verizon DSL moving to CGN

Mon Apr 8 19:43:40 UTC 2013

http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id_document_tag=draft-ietf-softwire-map

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map/?include_text=1

On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 03:41:54PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) <rajiva at 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!
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the clarity, Chuck.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rajiv
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chuck Anderson <cra at WPI.EDU>
> > Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:18 PM
> > To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva at cisco.com>
> > Cc: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com>, nanog list
> > <nanog at 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,
> > >>
> > >> UmmmŠ 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 at gmail.com>
> > >> Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 2:28 PM
> > >> To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva at cisco.com>
> > >> Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se>, nanog list <nanog at nanog.org>
> > >> Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
> > >> ><rajiva at 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' ?