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 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 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' ?