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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
