Verizon DSL moving to CGN

[rajiva at cisco.com (Rajiv Asati (rajiva))]

Oh, it certainly is (per the IETF IPR rules).

Thanks for the clarity, Chuck.

Cheers,
Rajiv

-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Anderson <cra at WPI.EDU>
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:18 PM
To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva at cisco.com>
Cc: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com>, nanog list
<nanog at 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,
>> 
>> Ummm? 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 at gmail.com>
>> Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 2:28 PM
>> To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva at cisco.com>
>> Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se>, nanog list <nanog at nanog.org>
>> Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
>> 
>> >
>> >On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
>> ><rajiva at 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' ?