Subject: RE: Non-IP Protocol Support

From: "H.Cruickshank" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:48:58 +0100

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: [email-masked] 

http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/H.Cruickshank/ 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of John Border
Sent: 03 August 2005 16:35
To: [email-masked]
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

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 15:16:22 +0100 (BST)

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

L.

> security work progress is to focus on the security requirements to carry

<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><[email-masked]>

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 17:30:16 +0100

Does this use the IP Ethertype field?

Gorry