IP over DVB (ipdvb)

Last Modified: 2008-08-21

Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/ipdvb

Chair(s):

  • Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>

    Internet Area Director(s):

  • Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
  • Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>

    Internet Area Advisor:

  • Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>

    Secretary(ies):

  • Martin Stiemerling <stiemerling@netlab.nec.de>

    Mailing Lists:

    General Discussion: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
    To Subscribe: majordomo@erg.abdn.ac.uk
    In Body: subscribe ipdvb at 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
    Dec 2007  Submit ULE Security Requirements to IESG
    Dec 2007  Progress the Encapsulation RFC along the IETF standards track

    Internet-Drafts:

    Security requirements for the Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) protocol (65845 bytes)

    Request For Comments:

    A Framework for transmission of IP datagrams over MPEG-2 Networks (RFC 4259) (100423 bytes)
    Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) for transmission of IP datagrams over an MPEG-2 Transport Stream (RFC 4326) (95422 bytes)
    Address Resolution Mechanisms for IP Datagrams over MPEG-2 Networks (RFC 4947) (102717 bytes)
    Extension Formats for Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) and the Generic Stream Encapsulation (GSE) (RFC 5163) (42935 bytes)
    IETF Secretariat - Please send questions, comments, and/or suggestions to ietf-web@ietf.org.

    Return to working group directory.

    Return to IETF home page.