Chris, Your points are well taken.
Cheers, Rajiv -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:57 PM To: Rajiv Asati <raj...@cisco.com> Cc: Chuck Anderson <c...@wpi.edu>, nanog list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN > > > >On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) ><raj...@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.li...@gmail.com> > >Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:41 PM >To: Rajiv Asati <raj...@cisco.com> > >Cc: Chuck Anderson <c...@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) >><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 ><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' ? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
