IP over DVB (ipdvb)

Last modified: 2011-08-02

Chair

Internet Area Directors

Internet Area Advisor

Secretary

Mailing Lists:

General Discussion: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
To Subscribe: majordomo@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Archive: http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/ipdvb/archive/

Description of Working Group:

The WG will develop new protocols and architectures to enable better deployment of IP over MPEG-2 transport and provide easier interworking with IP networks. Specific properties of this subnetwork technology include link-layer support for unicast and multicast, large numbers of down-stream receivers, and efficiency of transmission.

These properties resemble those in some other wireless networks. The specific focus of the group is on the use of MPEG-2 transport (examples include the Digital Video Broadcast (DVB) standards: DVB-RCS; DVB-S and DVB-T and related ATSC Specifications) in next generation networks and is not concerned with the development, replacement, or retention of existing protocols on the existing generation of networks.

The WG will endeavour to reuse existing open standard technologies, giving guidance on usage in IP networks, whenever they are able to fulfill requirements. For instance, we acknowledge the existing Multiprotocol Encapsulation (MPE) [ATSC A/90;ETSI EN 301192] and that this will continue to be deployed in the future to develop new markets. Any alternative encapsulation would need to co-exist with MPE.

Appropriate standards will be defined to support transmission of IPv4 and IPv6 datagrams between IP networks connected using MPEG-2 transport subnetworks. This includes options for encapsulation, dynamic unicast address resolution for IPv4/IPv6, and the mechanisms needed to map routed IP multicast traffic to the MPEG-2 transport subnetwork. The standards will be appropriate to both MPE and any alternative encapsulation method developed. The developed protocols may also be applicable to other multicast enabled subnetwork technologies supporting large numbers of directly connected systems.

The current list of work items is:

Specify the requirements and architecture for supporting IPv4/IPv6 via MPEG-2 transmission networks. Such requirements should consider the range of platforms currently (or anticipated to be) in use. This draft will be an Informational RFC.

Define a standards-track RFC defining an efficient encapsulation method. The design will consider the need for MAC addresses, the potential need for synchronisation between streams, support for a wide range of IPv4/IPv6 and multicast traffic.

Provide an Informational RFC describing a framework for unicast and multicast address resolution over MPEG-2 transmission networks. The document will describe options for the address resolution process, relating these to appropriate usage scenarios and suggesting appropriate protocol mechanisms for both the existing Multi-Protocol Encapsulation (MPE) and the efficient encapsulation (2). Consideration will be paid to existing standards, and the cases for IPv6 and IPv4 will be described.

Define standards-track RFC(s) to specify procedures for dynamic address resolution for IPv4/IPv6. This will describe the protocol and syntax of the information exchanged to bind unicast and multicast flows to the MPEG-2 TS Logical Channels. This will include specific optimisations appropriate for networks reaching large numbers of down-stream systems.

Goals and Milestones

Done Draft of a WG Architecture ID describing usage of MPEG-2 transport for IP transmission.
Done Draft of a WG ID on the new Encapsulation.
Done Submit Architecture to IESG
Done Draft of a WG ID on the AR Framework, specifying mechanisms to perform address resolution.
Done Submit Encapsulation to IESG
Done Draft of a WG ID defining Security Requirements for the ULE protocol
Done Submit AR Framework to IESG
Apr 2006 Draft of a WG ID defining an IP Address Resolution (AR) protocol
Jan 2007 Submit AR Protocol to IESG
Done Submit Extension Header Formats to IESG for publication as PS
Done Submit ULE Security Requirements to IESG
Dec 2007 Progress the Encapsulation RFC along the IETF standards track

No Internet-Drafts

Request for Comments

Internet SocietyAMSHome - Tools Team - Datatracker - IASA - IAB - RFC Editor - IANA - IRTF - IETF Trust - ISOC - IETF Journal - Store - Contact Us
Secretariat services provided by Association Management Solutions, LLC (AMS).
Please send problem reports to: ietf-action@ietf.org.