Verizon DSL moving to CGN

Mon Apr 8 19:57:08 UTC 2013

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) <rajiva at cisco.com>wrote:

> 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
>
>
great, but still a draft, not an official standard.

> And no, Cisco has no IPR on MAP wrt the above drafts.
>
>
'yet'... they don't have to officially declare until WGLC... and REALLY not
until the draft is sent up to the IESG, but doing it early is certainly
nice so that the WG has an opportunity to say: "yea, IPR here is going to
cause a problem with interop/etc".

> Cheers,
> Rajiv
>
> PS: Please do note that the IPRs mostly get nullified once they are
> through the IETF standards process.
>
>
that's not been my experience.. see flow-spec for a great example. 'mostly
nullified' is .. disingenuous at best.

>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:41 PM
> To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva at cisco.com>
> Cc: Chuck Anderson <cra at WPI.EDU>, nanog list <nanog at nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
>
> >
> >
> >
> >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' ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>