Verizon DSL moving to CGN

Mon Apr 8 22:03:49 UTC 2013

Chris,

Your points are well taken.

Cheers,
Rajiv

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com>
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:57 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 3:48 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-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
><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' ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>