Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva () cisco com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 22:03:49 +0000

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,

UmmmÅ  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' ?





















  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault