Indeed, RFC 3251 may be worth considering :-)
But seriously...
... could I not encapsulate ARP, in that case, over multicast IP?
It may be that this conversation is a little premature, in that there are
other questions about security that aren't directly related to this. But
if you can't tunnel stuff over IP to bootstrap, for example, then I'm
suspicious of using an IP-based architecture to set-up a non-IP-based
security system. (If that makes any sense?!)
Cheers,
Mark.
>
> The IETF have defined several foo-over-IP methods which could be used,
> and
> these should work with ULE (bidirectional IP connectivity may be
> required).
> PWE3 is by no means the only option.
>
> However, there are situations were this tunnel over IP approach really
> does
> not do what may be wanted. ARP for IPv4 is a classic example. If you
> wanted
> to use arp to resolve an IP to MAC address, then clearly you can't
> encapsulate this over IP to send it.
>
> Gorry
>
> On 4/8/05 12:40 pm, "West, Mark" <mark.a.west@roke.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > A further comment on Juan's point (and something that came up in
> > discussion after the ipdvb session, yesterday)...
> >
> > If there is a security mechanism for IP (e.g. IPsec) and you want to
> apply
> > that to non-IP flows (e.g. a stream of SNDUs, Ethernet frames, ...)
> then
> > why not run the non-IP over an emulated pseudo-wire within the IPsec
> > tunnel? Then you only need an IP-based security solution.
> >
> > I honestly don't know whether this is appropriate, but it seemed like
> an
> > interesting idea at the time!
> >
> >
> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-iana-allocation-11.
> txt
> > already has codepoints for Ethernet, etc., but not anything specific
> to
> > the ipdvb case.)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mark.
> >
> > --
> > Mark A. West, Senior Consultant Engineer
> > Roke Manor Research Ltd., Romsey, Hants. SO51 0ZN
> > Phone +44 (0)1794 833311 Fax +44 (0)1794 833433
> >
>
>
>