@bbs2web: No, you don’t need any kind of proxy ARP on interface. I use published ARP entries and I specifically like it, because it’s selective and I can have proxy ARP only for IP addresses I want, unlike per-interface proxy ARP which answers to anything.
I just tested it right now:
# no proxy ARP on interface:
/interface ethernet
set [ find default-name=ether1 ] arp=enabled ...
# addresses:
/ip address
add address=192.168.80.183/24 interface=ether1
add address=192.168.10.1/24 interface=ether2
# route part of ether1 subnet somewhere else:
/ip route
add dst-address=192.168.80.224/27 gateway=192.168.10.2
# proxy ARP for selected addresses:
/ip arp
add address=192.168.80.230 interface=ether1 published=yes
add address=192.168.80.240 interface=ether1 published=yes
When 192.168.80.x device connected to ether1 tries to access anything in 192.168.80.224/27, router answers with own MAC address only for .230 and .240.
Truth is, there must be some difference between this and per-interface proxy ARP. For example, per-interface proxy ARP will work even without any IP address assigned to ether1, while published ARP entry is shown as invalid and doesn’t work. Also in the past, I’ve seen different treatment of different route types (reachable, blackhole, …), but I can’t reproduce that now.