Ah, OK. If I get time, I will review the document in next week or two. Thanks,
Hemant -----Original Message----- From: Laganier, Julien [mailto:juli...@qualcomm.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:56 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Pekka Savola Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; draft-ietf-csi-proxy-s...@tools.ietf.org; csi-cha...@tools.ietf.org Subject: RE: speaking of ND Proxy and NBMA etc. Hemant, Right - I understand that some deployments do not require SEND security. As a side note, draft-ietf-csi-proxy-send-01 has just entered WGLC in the CSI WG, reviews by interested parties would be appreciated! Thank you. --julien > -----Original Message----- > From: Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:shem...@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:53 AM > To: Laganier, Julien; Pekka Savola > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; draft-ietf-csi-proxy-s...@tools.ietf.org; csi- > cha...@tools.ietf.org > Subject: RE: speaking of ND Proxy and NBMA etc. > > Julien, > > Thanks - we will update our draft to change the info that now the CSI > group is working on SEND extensions for ND Proxy and it's Work in > Progress. However, one original intent of our draft is still valid > that > some deployments want to use ND Proxy but will not use SEND. > > Hemant > > -----Original Message----- > From: Laganier, Julien [mailto:juli...@qualcomm.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:31 PM > To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Pekka Savola > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; draft-ietf-csi-proxy-s...@tools.ietf.org; > csi-cha...@tools.ietf.org > Subject: RE: speaking of ND Proxy and NBMA etc. > > Hemant, > > The CSI WG has been chartered in 2008 to develop an ND proxy support > for > SEND and has a corresponding work item: > > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-csi-proxy-send-01> > > --julien > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of > > Hemant Singh (shemant) > > Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 2:13 AM > > To: Pekka Savola > > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: speaking of ND Proxy and NBMA etc. > > > > 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 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
