Re: Non-IP Protocol Support

[Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>]

In some environments 802.1pQ; Metro Ethernet; LLC-based control packets
(such as spanning tree); MPLS, etc are seen as important to provide
management and control the L2 network. These and others are all supported by
the ULE protocol type, and can be all used for IP network traffic.

When we come to talking about security threats and requirements, it would be
sensible to examine IPv4 and IPv6 as the most important services. If we can
analyse this, we will be doing well.

Future work may then also address other non-IP traffic flows (should this
seem tractable and useful). One possibility is, I understand, to allow
IP-based key management for non-IP flows (with some design trade-offs), but
this requires extra work to define how this could happen. Another
possibility is not to use alternate key management for these applications.

Gorry

On 3/8/05 6:59 pm, "Juan Cantillo" <juan.cantillo@ensica.fr> wrote:

> 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
>> 
> 
>