On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) <raj...@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 <c...@wpi.edu> > Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:18 PM > To: Rajiv Asati <raj...@cisco.com> > Cc: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.li...@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, > >> > >> 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.li...@gmail.com> > >> Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 2:28 PM > >> To: Rajiv Asati <raj...@cisco.com> > >> Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@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) > >> ><raj...@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' ? > >
