diff --git a/keps/sig-network/5343-kube-proxy-backends/README.md b/keps/sig-network/5343-kube-proxy-backends/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..b50e270bad0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/sig-network/5343-kube-proxy-backends/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,824 @@
+# KEP-5343: Updates to kube-proxy backend support
+
+<!-- toc -->
+- [Release Signoff Checklist](#release-signoff-checklist)
+- [Summary](#summary)
+- [Motivation](#motivation)
+  - [Goals](#goals)
+  - [Non-Goals](#non-goals)
+- [Proposal](#proposal)
+  - [Determine a timeline for declaring <code>nftables</code> to be the &quot;preferred&quot; backend](#determine-a-timeline-for-declaring-nftables-to-be-the-preferred-backend)
+  - [Decide what to do about &quot;the default kube-proxy mode&quot;](#decide-what-to-do-about-the-default-kube-proxy-mode)
+  - [Deprecating the <code>ipvs</code> backend](#deprecating-the-ipvs-backend)
+  - [Deprecating the <code>winkernel</code> backend](#deprecating-the-winkernel-backend)
+  - [Risks and Mitigations](#risks-and-mitigations)
+- [Design Details](#design-details)
+  - [Test Plan](#test-plan)
+      - [Prerequisite testing updates](#prerequisite-testing-updates)
+      - [Unit tests](#unit-tests)
+      - [Integration tests](#integration-tests)
+      - [e2e tests](#e2e-tests)
+  - [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria)
+  - [Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy](#upgrade--downgrade-strategy)
+  - [Version Skew Strategy](#version-skew-strategy)
+- [Production Readiness Review Questionnaire](#production-readiness-review-questionnaire)
+  - [Feature Enablement and Rollback](#feature-enablement-and-rollback)
+  - [Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning](#rollout-upgrade-and-rollback-planning)
+  - [Monitoring Requirements](#monitoring-requirements)
+  - [Dependencies](#dependencies)
+  - [Scalability](#scalability)
+  - [Troubleshooting](#troubleshooting)
+- [Implementation History](#implementation-history)
+- [Drawbacks](#drawbacks)
+- [Alternatives](#alternatives)
+- [Infrastructure Needed (Optional)](#infrastructure-needed-optional)
+<!-- /toc -->
+
+## Release Signoff Checklist
+
+<!--
+**ACTION REQUIRED:** In order to merge code into a release, there must be an
+issue in [kubernetes/enhancements] referencing this KEP and targeting a release
+milestone **before the [Enhancement Freeze](https://git.k8s.io/sig-release/releases)
+of the targeted release**.
+
+For enhancements that make changes to code or processes/procedures in core
+Kubernetes—i.e., [kubernetes/kubernetes], we require the following Release
+Signoff checklist to be completed.
+
+Check these off as they are completed for the Release Team to track. These
+checklist items _must_ be updated for the enhancement to be released.
+-->
+
+Items marked with (R) are required *prior to targeting to a milestone / release*.
+
+- [ ] (R) Enhancement issue in release milestone, which links to KEP dir in [kubernetes/enhancements] (not the initial KEP PR)
+- [ ] (R) KEP approvers have approved the KEP status as `implementable`
+- [ ] (R) Design details are appropriately documented
+- [ ] (R) Test plan is in place, giving consideration to SIG Architecture and SIG Testing input (including test refactors)
+  - [ ] e2e Tests for all Beta API Operations (endpoints)
+  - [ ] (R) Ensure GA e2e tests meet requirements for [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md) 
+  - [ ] (R) Minimum Two Week Window for GA e2e tests to prove flake free
+- [ ] (R) Graduation criteria is in place
+  - [ ] (R) [all GA Endpoints](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/1806) must be hit by [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md) 
+- [ ] (R) Production readiness review completed
+- [ ] (R) Production readiness review approved
+- [ ] "Implementation History" section is up-to-date for milestone
+- [ ] User-facing documentation has been created in [kubernetes/website], for publication to [kubernetes.io]
+- [ ] Supporting documentation—e.g., additional design documents, links to mailing list discussions/SIG meetings, relevant PRs/issues, release notes
+
+<!--
+**Note:** This checklist is iterative and should be reviewed and updated every time this enhancement is being considered for a milestone.
+-->
+
+[kubernetes.io]: https://kubernetes.io/
+[kubernetes/enhancements]: https://git.k8s.io/enhancements
+[kubernetes/kubernetes]: https://git.k8s.io/kubernetes
+[kubernetes/website]: https://git.k8s.io/website
+
+## Summary
+
+With [KEP-3866] going GA, there are now 4 supported kube-proxy
+backends in-tree (`iptables`, `ipvs`, `nftables`, and `winkernel`).
+The nftables KEP noted that, as future work, we should figure if/how
+we can deprecate either or both of the older Linux backends. There has
+also been sporadic discussion about deprecating the `winkernel`
+backend or moving it out of tree, since it is not clear that it
+benefits from being in-tree.
+
+Meanwhile, an earlier KEP, [KEP-3786], had proposed moving most of the
+shared kube-proxy code into the kube-proxy staging repo
+(`k8s.io/kube-proxy`) so that it could be more easily shared by
+out-of-tree service proxy implementations. That KEP was never merged,
+though there was general agreement with the high-level idea.
+
+The exact goals of this KEP are not finalized, but in general, the
+plan is to figure out what to do with kube-proxy backends.
+
+[KEP-3866]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-network/3866-nftables-proxy/README.md
+[KEP-3786]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/pull/3788
+
+## Motivation
+
+### Goals
+
+(These are kind of "Meta-Goals", since we still need to decide exactly
+what the Goals of the KEP are.)
+
+- Figure out the situation around "the default kube-proxy backend".
+
+- Figure out a plan for deprecating the `ipvs` backend.
+
+- Figure out (in conjunction with SIG Windows) what we want to do with
+  the `winkernel` backend.
+
+Assuming we end up deciding we want to move any proxy implementation
+out of tree, we will likely want to:
+
+- Refactor and redesign the kube-proxy "library" code
+  (`k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/proxy`) to make it more usable and more
+  maintainable, and to fix existing bugs.
+
+- Move most of `k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/proxy/` (except for the backend
+  implementations) into the kube-proxy staging repo,
+  `k8s.io/kube-proxy`, so it can be shared with out-of-tree backends.
+
+### Non-Goals
+
+- We do not want to do anything that sounds like "removing kube-proxy
+  from core kubernetes". In particular:
+
+    - We do not want to remove `cmd/kube-proxy` from
+      `k8s.io/kubernetes`.
+
+    - We do not want to stop building an official Linux kube-proxy
+      container image.
+
+## Proposal
+
+### Determine a timeline for declaring `nftables` to be the "preferred" backend
+
+We expect that *eventually* the `nftables` backend will be a better
+choice for everyone than the `iptables` backend. However, at the
+moment, it requires a new-ish kernel, which may possibly be too new
+for some users.
+
+There has been some work to try to define a [minimum required kernel
+version for Kubernetes], though the work has been in-progress so long
+that the originally-proposed minimum version (4.19 LTS) is now EOL.
+The recommended minimum kernel version for nftables kube-proxy is
+quite a bit newer than this though (5.13), so it may be a while before
+we can assume nftables as the default for all users.
+
+[minimum required kernel version for Kubernetes]: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/116799
+
+### Decide what to do about "the default kube-proxy mode"
+
+The `iptables` and `nftables` kube-proxy backends are not 100%
+compatible, both intentionally (e.g. changes to NodePort handling in
+`nftables`) and accidentally (some network plugins or other tools
+might do things like assume the existence of certain `iptables`
+chains). When we [changed the default proxy mode from `userspace` to
+`iptables`] (in Kubernetes 1.2), we decided to just not worry about
+compatibility problems. We can't plausibly do that this time.
+
+Rather than actually changing the default, we could try to get to a
+point where the "default" no longer matters, because everyone is
+specifying which proxy mode they want *explicitly*. We can start by
+having kube-proxy log warnings and Events if you don't explicitly
+specify a proxy mode, and eventually, after enough time has passed, we
+could make it an error to start kube-proxy without explicitly
+specifying the mode.
+
+Assuming the `v1alpha2` config file format happens, we could also
+remove defaulting of `mode` from that config version, and make the
+`v1alpha2` `mode` field be required and non-defaulted.
+
+Another possibility would be to deprecate the existing multi-mode
+kube-proxy binary in favor of having separate `kube-proxy-iptables`,
+`kube-proxy-ipvs`, and `kube-proxy-nftables` binaries (and perhaps,
+eventually, separate images). That would also work well with the plan
+to deprecate `ipvs` mode (and would allow us to completely remove
+the existing deprecated CLI options)...
+
+[changed the default proxy mode from `userspace` to `iptables`]: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/16344
+
+### Deprecating the `ipvs` backend
+
+We will have to maintain both `nftables` and `iptables` for a while,
+but we would like to stop maintaining `ipvs` as soon as we can.
+
+At this point, there is no real reason to prefer the `ipvs` backend to
+`nftables`, other than it having slightly looser kernel version
+requirements. The `nftables` backend has slightly better performance
+than `ipvs` (plus a cleaner architecture and better feature parity
+with `iptables`) and none of the other features that make IPVS
+interesting (such as configurable schedulers) really apply to the case
+of a Kubernetes service proxy. (The simpler schedulers, like `rr`,
+could be implemented in the `nftables` backend if we cared, while the
+more complicated ones, like `mh`, end up being thwarted by the fact
+that the kube-proxy instances on different nodes don't share
+information with each other.)
+
+At this point, we are not likely to add support for new features to
+the `ipvs` backend (unless they come "for free" via the
+backend-indepdent code). We have also slowed down bugfixing for
+`ipvs`, and suggested that users filing bugs against it should try out
+the `nftables` backend instead.
+
+At some point we will need to take some more definitive action.
+Possibilities include:
+
+  - Logging warnings/Events about the fact that `ipvs` mode is
+    deprecated.
+
+  - Moving the `ipvs` mode out of the primary `kube-proxy` binary into
+    a separate `kube-proxy-ipvs` binary.
+
+  - Moving `kube-proxy-ipvs` to a staged repository.
+
+  - Moving `kube-proxy-ipvs` to a non-staged repository.
+
+  - Removing support for `ipvs` from kind and kubeadm.
+
+Since part of the goal is to reduce the maintenance burden on SIG
+Network, we wouldn't want to provide full support for
+`kube-proxy-ipvs`. Perhaps some community members would be willing to
+take up maintenance of it instead. Or, perhaps, we could simply
+abandon it after splitting it out, leaving it permanently stuck
+implementing only the features that it had at that time.
+
+### Deprecating the `winkernel` backend
+
+Although SIG Network is considered co-responsible for the `winkernel`
+kube-proxy backend, none of us understand it at all, and the handful
+of people who do work on it do not tend to interact with SIG Network
+very much.
+
+Additionally, like much of Kubernetes-on-Windows, the kube-proxy
+backend has lagged behind in functionality, and has several associated
+feature gates that have been stuck at Alpha or Beta for years.
+
+At one point, there was more effort going into the KPNG Windows
+backend than the official kube-proxy backend, and perhaps some of that
+work could be recovered if the Windows proxy backend was moved out of
+tree.
+
+This could be done in the same way as described for the `ipvs` backend
+above, but the actual decisions about where to land the new code would
+presumably be made by SIG Windows.
+
+### Risks and Mitigations
+
+<!--
+What are the risks of this proposal, and how do we mitigate? Think broadly.
+For example, consider both security and how this will impact the larger
+Kubernetes ecosystem.
+
+How will security be reviewed, and by whom?
+
+How will UX be reviewed, and by whom?
+
+Consider including folks who also work outside the SIG or subproject.
+-->
+
+## Design Details
+
+<!--
+This section should contain enough information that the specifics of your
+change are understandable. This may include API specs (though not always
+required) or even code snippets. If there's any ambiguity about HOW your
+proposal will be implemented, this is the place to discuss them.
+-->
+
+### Test Plan
+
+<!--
+**Note:** *Not required until targeted at a release.*
+The goal is to ensure that we don't accept enhancements with inadequate testing.
+
+All code is expected to have adequate tests (eventually with coverage
+expectations). Please adhere to the [Kubernetes testing guidelines][testing-guidelines]
+when drafting this test plan.
+
+[testing-guidelines]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-testing/testing.md
+-->
+
+[ ] I/we understand the owners of the involved components may require updates to
+existing tests to make this code solid enough prior to committing the changes necessary
+to implement this enhancement.
+
+##### Prerequisite testing updates
+
+<!--
+Based on reviewers feedback describe what additional tests need to be added prior
+implementing this enhancement to ensure the enhancements have also solid foundations.
+-->
+
+##### Unit tests
+
+<!--
+In principle every added code should have complete unit test coverage, so providing
+the exact set of tests will not bring additional value.
+However, if complete unit test coverage is not possible, explain the reason of it
+together with explanation why this is acceptable.
+-->
+
+<!--
+Additionally, for Alpha try to enumerate the core package you will be touching
+to implement this enhancement and provide the current unit coverage for those
+in the form of:
+- <package>: <date> - <current test coverage>
+The data can be easily read from:
+https://testgrid.k8s.io/sig-testing-canaries#ci-kubernetes-coverage-unit
+
+This can inform certain test coverage improvements that we want to do before
+extending the production code to implement this enhancement.
+-->
+
+- `<package>`: `<date>` - `<test coverage>`
+
+##### Integration tests
+
+<!--
+Integration tests are contained in k8s.io/kubernetes/test/integration.
+Integration tests allow control of the configuration parameters used to start the binaries under test.
+This is different from e2e tests which do not allow configuration of parameters.
+Doing this allows testing non-default options and multiple different and potentially conflicting command line options.
+-->
+
+<!--
+This question should be filled when targeting a release.
+For Alpha, describe what tests will be added to ensure proper quality of the enhancement.
+
+For Beta and GA, add links to added tests together with links to k8s-triage for those tests:
+https://storage.googleapis.com/k8s-triage/index.html
+-->
+
+- <test>: <link to test coverage>
+
+##### e2e tests
+
+<!--
+This question should be filled when targeting a release.
+For Alpha, describe what tests will be added to ensure proper quality of the enhancement.
+
+For Beta and GA, add links to added tests together with links to k8s-triage for those tests:
+https://storage.googleapis.com/k8s-triage/index.html
+
+We expect no non-infra related flakes in the last month as a GA graduation criteria.
+-->
+
+- <test>: <link to test coverage>
+
+### Graduation Criteria
+
+<!--
+**Note:** *Not required until targeted at a release.*
+
+Define graduation milestones.
+
+These may be defined in terms of API maturity, [feature gate] graduations, or as
+something else. The KEP should keep this high-level with a focus on what
+signals will be looked at to determine graduation.
+
+Consider the following in developing the graduation criteria for this enhancement:
+- [Maturity levels (`alpha`, `beta`, `stable`)][maturity-levels]
+- [Feature gate][feature gate] lifecycle
+- [Deprecation policy][deprecation-policy]
+
+Clearly define what graduation means by either linking to the [API doc
+definition](https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/overview/kubernetes-api/#api-versioning)
+or by redefining what graduation means.
+
+In general we try to use the same stages (alpha, beta, GA), regardless of how the
+functionality is accessed.
+
+[feature gate]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/feature-gates.md
+[maturity-levels]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/api_changes.md#alpha-beta-and-stable-versions
+[deprecation-policy]: https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/using-api/deprecation-policy/
+
+Below are some examples to consider, in addition to the aforementioned [maturity levels][maturity-levels].
+
+#### Alpha
+
+- Feature implemented behind a feature flag
+- Initial e2e tests completed and enabled
+
+#### Beta
+
+- Gather feedback from developers and surveys
+- Complete features A, B, C
+- Additional tests are in Testgrid and linked in KEP
+
+#### GA
+
+- N examples of real-world usage
+- N installs
+- More rigorous forms of testing—e.g., downgrade tests and scalability tests
+- Allowing time for feedback
+
+**Note:** Generally we also wait at least two releases between beta and
+GA/stable, because there's no opportunity for user feedback, or even bug reports,
+in back-to-back releases.
+
+**For non-optional features moving to GA, the graduation criteria must include
+[conformance tests].**
+
+[conformance tests]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md
+
+#### Deprecation
+
+- Announce deprecation and support policy of the existing flag
+- Two versions passed since introducing the functionality that deprecates the flag (to address version skew)
+- Address feedback on usage/changed behavior, provided on GitHub issues
+- Deprecate the flag
+-->
+
+### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy
+
+<!--
+If applicable, how will the component be upgraded and downgraded? Make sure
+this is in the test plan.
+
+Consider the following in developing an upgrade/downgrade strategy for this
+enhancement:
+- What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing
+  cluster required to make on upgrade, in order to maintain previous behavior?
+- What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing
+  cluster required to make on upgrade, in order to make use of the enhancement?
+-->
+
+### Version Skew Strategy
+
+<!--
+If applicable, how will the component handle version skew with other
+components? What are the guarantees? Make sure this is in the test plan.
+
+Consider the following in developing a version skew strategy for this
+enhancement:
+- Does this enhancement involve coordinating behavior in the control plane and nodes?
+- How does an n-3 kubelet or kube-proxy without this feature available behave when this feature is used?
+- How does an n-1 kube-controller-manager or kube-scheduler without this feature available behave when this feature is used?
+- Will any other components on the node change? For example, changes to CSI,
+  CRI or CNI may require updating that component before the kubelet.
+-->
+
+## Production Readiness Review Questionnaire
+
+<!--
+
+Production readiness reviews are intended to ensure that features merging into
+Kubernetes are observable, scalable and supportable; can be safely operated in
+production environments, and can be disabled or rolled back in the event they
+cause increased failures in production. See more in the PRR KEP at
+https://git.k8s.io/enhancements/keps/sig-architecture/1194-prod-readiness.
+
+The production readiness review questionnaire must be completed and approved
+for the KEP to move to `implementable` status and be included in the release.
+
+In some cases, the questions below should also have answers in `kep.yaml`. This
+is to enable automation to verify the presence of the review, and to reduce review
+burden and latency.
+
+The KEP must have a approver from the
+[`prod-readiness-approvers`](http://git.k8s.io/enhancements/OWNERS_ALIASES)
+team. Please reach out on the
+[#prod-readiness](https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/CPNHUMN74) channel if
+you need any help or guidance.
+-->
+
+### Feature Enablement and Rollback
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting alpha to a release.
+-->
+
+###### How can this feature be enabled / disabled in a live cluster?
+
+<!--
+Pick one of these and delete the rest.
+
+Documentation is available on [feature gate lifecycle] and expectations, as
+well as the [existing list] of feature gates.
+
+[feature gate lifecycle]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/feature-gates.md
+[existing list]: https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/command-line-tools-reference/feature-gates/
+-->
+
+- [ ] Feature gate (also fill in values in `kep.yaml`)
+  - Feature gate name:
+  - Components depending on the feature gate:
+- [ ] Other
+  - Describe the mechanism:
+  - Will enabling / disabling the feature require downtime of the control
+    plane?
+  - Will enabling / disabling the feature require downtime or reprovisioning
+    of a node?
+
+###### Does enabling the feature change any default behavior?
+
+<!--
+Any change of default behavior may be surprising to users or break existing
+automations, so be extremely careful here.
+-->
+
+###### Can the feature be disabled once it has been enabled (i.e. can we roll back the enablement)?
+
+<!--
+Describe the consequences on existing workloads (e.g., if this is a runtime
+feature, can it break the existing applications?).
+
+Feature gates are typically disabled by setting the flag to `false` and
+restarting the component. No other changes should be necessary to disable the
+feature.
+
+NOTE: Also set `disable-supported` to `true` or `false` in `kep.yaml`.
+-->
+
+###### What happens if we reenable the feature if it was previously rolled back?
+
+###### Are there any tests for feature enablement/disablement?
+
+<!--
+The e2e framework does not currently support enabling or disabling feature
+gates. However, unit tests in each component dealing with managing data, created
+with and without the feature, are necessary. At the very least, think about
+conversion tests if API types are being modified.
+
+Additionally, for features that are introducing a new API field, unit tests that
+are exercising the `switch` of feature gate itself (what happens if I disable a
+feature gate after having objects written with the new field) are also critical.
+You can take a look at one potential example of such test in:
+https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/97058/files#diff-7826f7adbc1996a05ab52e3f5f02429e94b68ce6bce0dc534d1be636154fded3R246-R282
+-->
+
+### Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+-->
+
+###### How can a rollout or rollback fail? Can it impact already running workloads?
+
+<!--
+Try to be as paranoid as possible - e.g., what if some components will restart
+mid-rollout?
+
+Be sure to consider highly-available clusters, where, for example,
+feature flags will be enabled on some API servers and not others during the
+rollout. Similarly, consider large clusters and how enablement/disablement
+will rollout across nodes.
+-->
+
+###### What specific metrics should inform a rollback?
+
+<!--
+What signals should users be paying attention to when the feature is young
+that might indicate a serious problem?
+-->
+
+###### Were upgrade and rollback tested? Was the upgrade->downgrade->upgrade path tested?
+
+<!--
+Describe manual testing that was done and the outcomes.
+Longer term, we may want to require automated upgrade/rollback tests, but we
+are missing a bunch of machinery and tooling and can't do that now.
+-->
+
+###### Is the rollout accompanied by any deprecations and/or removals of features, APIs, fields of API types, flags, etc.?
+
+<!--
+Even if applying deprecation policies, they may still surprise some users.
+-->
+
+### Monitoring Requirements
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+
+For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
+previous answers based on experience in the field.
+-->
+
+###### How can an operator determine if the feature is in use by workloads?
+
+<!--
+Ideally, this should be a metric. Operations against the Kubernetes API (e.g.,
+checking if there are objects with field X set) may be a last resort. Avoid
+logs or events for this purpose.
+-->
+
+###### How can someone using this feature know that it is working for their instance?
+
+<!--
+For instance, if this is a pod-related feature, it should be possible to determine if the feature is functioning properly
+for each individual pod.
+Pick one more of these and delete the rest.
+Please describe all items visible to end users below with sufficient detail so that they can verify correct enablement
+and operation of this feature.
+Recall that end users cannot usually observe component logs or access metrics.
+-->
+
+- [ ] Events
+  - Event Reason: 
+- [ ] API .status
+  - Condition name: 
+  - Other field: 
+- [ ] Other (treat as last resort)
+  - Details:
+
+###### What are the reasonable SLOs (Service Level Objectives) for the enhancement?
+
+<!--
+This is your opportunity to define what "normal" quality of service looks like
+for a feature.
+
+It's impossible to provide comprehensive guidance, but at the very
+high level (needs more precise definitions) those may be things like:
+  - per-day percentage of API calls finishing with 5XX errors <= 1%
+  - 99% percentile over day of absolute value from (job creation time minus expected
+    job creation time) for cron job <= 10%
+  - 99.9% of /health requests per day finish with 200 code
+
+These goals will help you determine what you need to measure (SLIs) in the next
+question.
+-->
+
+###### What are the SLIs (Service Level Indicators) an operator can use to determine the health of the service?
+
+<!--
+Pick one more of these and delete the rest.
+-->
+
+- [ ] Metrics
+  - Metric name:
+  - [Optional] Aggregation method:
+  - Components exposing the metric:
+- [ ] Other (treat as last resort)
+  - Details:
+
+###### Are there any missing metrics that would be useful to have to improve observability of this feature?
+
+<!--
+Describe the metrics themselves and the reasons why they weren't added (e.g., cost,
+implementation difficulties, etc.).
+-->
+
+### Dependencies
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+-->
+
+###### Does this feature depend on any specific services running in the cluster?
+
+<!--
+Think about both cluster-level services (e.g. metrics-server) as well
+as node-level agents (e.g. specific version of CRI). Focus on external or
+optional services that are needed. For example, if this feature depends on
+a cloud provider API, or upon an external software-defined storage or network
+control plane.
+
+For each of these, fill in the following—thinking about running existing user workloads
+and creating new ones, as well as about cluster-level services (e.g. DNS):
+  - [Dependency name]
+    - Usage description:
+      - Impact of its outage on the feature:
+      - Impact of its degraded performance or high-error rates on the feature:
+-->
+
+### Scalability
+
+<!--
+For alpha, this section is encouraged: reviewers should consider these questions
+and attempt to answer them.
+
+For beta, this section is required: reviewers must answer these questions.
+
+For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
+previous answers based on experience in the field.
+-->
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new API calls?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - API call type (e.g. PATCH pods)
+  - estimated throughput
+  - originating component(s) (e.g. Kubelet, Feature-X-controller)
+Focusing mostly on:
+  - components listing and/or watching resources they didn't before
+  - API calls that may be triggered by changes of some Kubernetes resources
+    (e.g. update of object X triggers new updates of object Y)
+  - periodic API calls to reconcile state (e.g. periodic fetching state,
+    heartbeats, leader election, etc.)
+-->
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in introducing new API types?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - API type
+  - Supported number of objects per cluster
+  - Supported number of objects per namespace (for namespace-scoped objects)
+-->
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new calls to the cloud provider?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - Which API(s):
+  - Estimated increase:
+-->
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing size or count of the existing API objects?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - API type(s):
+  - Estimated increase in size: (e.g., new annotation of size 32B)
+  - Estimated amount of new objects: (e.g., new Object X for every existing Pod)
+-->
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing time taken by any operations covered by existing SLIs/SLOs?
+
+<!--
+Look at the [existing SLIs/SLOs].
+
+Think about adding additional work or introducing new steps in between
+(e.g. need to do X to start a container), etc. Please describe the details.
+
+[existing SLIs/SLOs]: https://git.k8s.io/community/sig-scalability/slos/slos.md#kubernetes-slisslos
+-->
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in non-negligible increase of resource usage (CPU, RAM, disk, IO, ...) in any components?
+
+<!--
+Things to keep in mind include: additional in-memory state, additional
+non-trivial computations, excessive access to disks (including increased log
+volume), significant amount of data sent and/or received over network, etc.
+This through this both in small and large cases, again with respect to the
+[supported limits].
+
+[supported limits]: https://git.k8s.io/community//sig-scalability/configs-and-limits/thresholds.md
+-->
+
+###### Can enabling / using this feature result in resource exhaustion of some node resources (PIDs, sockets, inodes, etc.)?
+
+<!--
+Focus not just on happy cases, but primarily on more pathological cases
+(e.g. probes taking a minute instead of milliseconds, failed pods consuming resources, etc.).
+If any of the resources can be exhausted, how this is mitigated with the existing limits
+(e.g. pods per node) or new limits added by this KEP?
+
+Are there any tests that were run/should be run to understand performance characteristics better
+and validate the declared limits?
+-->
+
+### Troubleshooting
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+
+For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
+previous answers based on experience in the field.
+
+The Troubleshooting section currently serves the `Playbook` role. We may consider
+splitting it into a dedicated `Playbook` document (potentially with some monitoring
+details). For now, we leave it here.
+-->
+
+###### How does this feature react if the API server and/or etcd is unavailable?
+
+###### What are other known failure modes?
+
+<!--
+For each of them, fill in the following information by copying the below template:
+  - [Failure mode brief description]
+    - Detection: How can it be detected via metrics? Stated another way:
+      how can an operator troubleshoot without logging into a master or worker node?
+    - Mitigations: What can be done to stop the bleeding, especially for already
+      running user workloads?
+    - Diagnostics: What are the useful log messages and their required logging
+      levels that could help debug the issue?
+      Not required until feature graduated to beta.
+    - Testing: Are there any tests for failure mode? If not, describe why.
+-->
+
+###### What steps should be taken if SLOs are not being met to determine the problem?
+
+## Implementation History
+
+<!--
+Major milestones in the lifecycle of a KEP should be tracked in this section.
+Major milestones might include:
+- the `Summary` and `Motivation` sections being merged, signaling SIG acceptance
+- the `Proposal` section being merged, signaling agreement on a proposed design
+- the date implementation started
+- the first Kubernetes release where an initial version of the KEP was available
+- the version of Kubernetes where the KEP graduated to general availability
+- when the KEP was retired or superseded
+-->
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+<!--
+Why should this KEP _not_ be implemented?
+-->
+
+## Alternatives
+
+<!--
+What other approaches did you consider, and why did you rule them out? These do
+not need to be as detailed as the proposal, but should include enough
+information to express the idea and why it was not acceptable.
+-->
+
+## Infrastructure Needed (Optional)
+
+<!--
+Use this section if you need things from the project/SIG. Examples include a
+new subproject, repos requested, or GitHub details. Listing these here allows a
+SIG to get the process for these resources started right away.
+-->
diff --git a/keps/sig-network/5343-kube-proxy-backends/kep.yaml b/keps/sig-network/5343-kube-proxy-backends/kep.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..e3143773594
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/sig-network/5343-kube-proxy-backends/kep.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+title: Updates to kube-proxy backend support
+kep-number: 5343
+authors:
+  - "@danwinship"
+owning-sig: sig-network
+participating-sigs:
+  - sig-windows
+status: provisional
+creation-date: 2025-05-26
+reviewers:
+  - "@aojea"
+  - "@thockin"
+approvers:
+  - "@aojea"
+  - "@thockin"
+see-also:
+  - "/keps/sig-network/3866-nftables-proxy"
+replaces:
+
+# The target maturity stage in the current dev cycle for this KEP.
+# If the purpose of this KEP is to deprecate a user-visible feature
+# and a Deprecated feature gates are added, they should be deprecated|disabled|removed.
+stage: alpha
+
+# The most recent milestone for which work toward delivery of this KEP has been
+# done. This can be the current (upcoming) milestone, if it is being actively
+# worked on.
+latest-milestone: "v1.34"
+
+# The milestone at which this feature was, or is targeted to be, at each stage.
+milestone:
+  alpha: "v1.34"
+  beta:
+  stable:
+
+# The following PRR answers are required at alpha release
+# List the feature gate name and the components for which it must be enabled
+feature-gates:
+
+# The following PRR answers are required at beta release
+metrics: