Re: Non-IP Protocol Support

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

On 4/8/05 8:49 pm, "Shanbhogue, Vedvyas" <vedvyas.shanbhogue@intel.com>
wrote:

> Reading RFC3251 was an electrifying experience :)
>  
> Since the requirement here is to tunnel a non-IP protocol perhaps there is
> no need to tunnel ARP over the tunnel.
 
In a previous IETF, someone looked at the case of UDLR for IPv4, where arp
was used to support IPv4 over the MPEG-2 forward link. I was citing this as
a an example. We don't have specific use-cases for the "bridging of L2
frames" - what I meant to say was that sometimes L2 frames are used within a
L2 infrastructure to support an IP service. Hence, if there is an easy and
effective way to support L2 it is valuable.

There is also a second case of non-IP network-layer protocols.

> RFC 2784 GRE encapsulation with a few new etherTypes could work.
> 
> sincerely,
> Vs
> --
> Vedvyas Shanbhogue
> SSA, IPD
> o:(503) 677 - 6409, c:(503) 851 - 2088
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk [mailto:owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk] On
> Behalf Of West, Mark
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 6:24 AM
> To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Non-IP Protocol Support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>