RE: Non-IP Protocol Support

[Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>]

Do we class IP with an MPLS shim as IP, or non-IP, traffic?

L.

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, H.Cruickshank wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Security support to carry non-IP traffic is useful, but there is no
> compelling reason to make this a priority.  So the first step for the
> security work progress is to focus on the security requirements to carry
> IP traffic.
>
> Haitham
>
> --
>
> Dr. Haitham S. Cruickshank
>
> Lecturer
>
> Communications Centre for Communication Systems Research (CCSR)
>
> School of Electronics, Computing and Mathematics
>
> University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK
>
> Tel: +44 1483 686007 (indirect 689844)
>
> Fax: +44 1483 686011
>
> e-mail: H.Cruickshank@surrey.ac.uk
>
> http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/H.Cruickshank/
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk [mailto:owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk] On
> Behalf Of John Border
> Sent: 03 August 2005 16:35
> To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
> Subject: Non-IP Protocol Support
>
>
>
>     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
>
>
>
>
>

<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><L.Wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>