Yes. Cable access concentrators (also called a CMTS (Cable Modem
Termination System)) for ipv4 support an ARP Proxy.  So it was natural
when the CMTS moved to also supporting IPv6, having the CMTS support ND
Proxy was a natural transition.  Two different CMTS vendors (one is
Cisco) support ND Proxy as of 2007.  Cable deployment is a NBMA network
where client behind our cable modem cannot communicate directly to each
other.  So the CMTS ND Proxy catches DAD duplicates and sends an NA and
the CMTS also responds to address resolution NS's with an NA.  That is
the extent of the ND Proxy on cable access concentrators.  Cable data
standards in Docsis 3.0 have also recommended ND Proxy.  Note also that
6lowpan has also recommended ND Proxy in their draft -
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-07.txt.  The v6ops IPv6 CE
Home Router has recommended ND Proxy for the router.  A v6ops document
cannot reference an Experimental RFC - this was the first motive behind
moving the ND Proxy RFC to be a Standards Track document.

I personally think RFC 4389 is well shaken out for a doc - as we say in
our new short note, the only reason they didn't make the ND Proxy doc a
Standards Track doc because ND Proxy did not support SEND extensions.
The SEND extensions was work TBD with another IETF WG but that group is,
I think, 4 years and counting for not taking this work.  But there are
networks that need ND Proxy without use of SEND.

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pek...@netcore.fi] 
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 3:51 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: speaking of ND Proxy and NBMA etc.

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wbeebee-6man-nd-proxy-std-00.txt

Do we already have implementations?  What are the implementation 
experiences?  Were all the features of the spec useful, or should 
something be changed (added, removed, clarified)?

This is not procedurally required for PS, but if there are a lot of 
implementations already, this would be a strong argument for going to 
PS.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to