RE: speaking of ND Proxy and NBMA etc.

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

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:shemant at cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:53 AM
> To: Laganier, Julien; Pekka Savola
> Cc: ipv6 at ietf.org; draft-ietf-csi-proxy-send at tools.ietf.org; csi-
> chairs at 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:julienl at qualcomm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:31 PM
> To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Pekka Savola
> Cc: ipv6 at ietf.org; draft-ietf-csi-proxy-send at tools.ietf.org;
> csi-chairs at 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-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
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------