Chris, Your points are well taken. Cheers, Rajiv -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:57 PM To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva@cisco.com> Cc: Chuck Anderson <cra@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) <rajiva@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@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:41 PM To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva@cisco.com>
Cc: Chuck Anderson <cra@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) <rajiva@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@WPI.EDU> Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:18 PM To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva@cisco.com>
Cc: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@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.lists@gmail.com> Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 2:28 PM To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva@cisco.com> Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@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) <rajiva@cisco.com> wrote:
Yes, MAP (T-Translation or E-Encap mode) is implemented on two
routers that I know of - ASR9K and ASR1K. Without that, you are right
regular 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' ?