Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN

["Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva () cisco com>]

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
> > > > 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' ?