RE: speaking of ND Proxy and NBMA etc.

["Laganier, Julien" <julienl at qualcomm.com>]

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-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Hemant Singh (shemant)
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 2:13 AM
> To: Pekka Savola
> Cc: ipv6 at 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:pekkas at netcore.fi]
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 3:51 PM
> To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
> Cc: ipv6 at 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 at ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------