[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ND-proxy applicability and loop-prevention

I reread draft-thaler-ipv6-ndproxy-02.txt, and wonder if it might be time to
revisit the need for ND proxies.

It seems the primary motivation for ND proxies is to avoid the need for L3
devices that require configuration, prefix assignment and configuration.  I
read the two scenarios in section 1, and, more generally, the motivation for
ND proxies to provide bridging between links with dissimilar technologies,
as motivation for the use of one ND proxy between a single upstream link
(perhaps to a service provider) and one or more local networks.

In the case of a more complicated local topology, it seems to me that it
would be highly unusual to find dissimilar link technologies that require
the use of ND proxies.  Why would anything but bridgeable IEEE802 be used
among the local networks?

We've done the hard engineering work in specifying DHCPv6 to solve the
problem of configuration and prefix delegation for a single gateway device
that has an upstream PPP, cable or wireless connection and multiple
downstream local networks.  DHCPv6 PD is a published standard with multiple,
interoperable implementations.  It is available in simple home gateways,
equivalent to the IPv4 NAT device in my basement.  I don't see a compelling
requirement to invent something new.

- Ralph

At 09:16 PM 3/23/2004 +0200, Jari Arkko wrote:

>Hmm.... I thought the idea of ND proxies was to avoid a complicated
>L3 device. If we need something like a routing protocol, maybe
>its time to pull out the proxy thing and replace it with a real
>L3 device?
>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6

IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6