Re: Non-IP Protocol Support

["Juan Cantillo" <juan.cantillo@ensica.fr>]

I agree too with MJM and John. For the "future" applications, since the IP 
vs non-IP traffic ratio will certainly keep becoming larger,  is it insane 
to consider non-IP traffic encapsulated in IP packets ?... This would solve 
everything with an IP solution right?
Best regards,




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marie-Jose Montpetit" <marie@mjmontpetit.com>
To: <ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 5:58 PM
Subject: RE: Non-IP Protocol Support


> I totally agree. Knowing that there is a compelling case of an IP
> solution that would be applicable across technologies (wireless,
> satellite and cable) I wonder why we should look at non-IP and legacy
> solution. Also looking in the future if we have an IP solution that
> works we can then see use cases for the non IP versions. I think it
> also would send the wrong message to the community. Let's solve IP over
> DVB here and let the other non-IP standardisation bodies tackle their
> technologies.
>
> /mjm
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Non-IP Protocol Support
> > From: John Border <border@hns.com>
> > Date: Wed, August 03, 2005 11:34 am
> > To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
> >
> > I can understand why it is desirable to be able to carry non-IP
> > traffic.  But, I would prefer to get a solution for security that
> > supports IP over DVB even if it doesn't support non-IP protocols than to
> > not have a solution.  Is there a compelling reason to include securing
> > non-IP traffic in the problem space right now?
> >
> >
> > John