http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id_document_tag=draft-ietf-softwire-map
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map/?include_text=1 On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 03:41:54PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote: > 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 > > 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, > > >> > > >> 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.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' ?