IP over DVB (ipdvb) Internet Drafts
| Security requirements for the Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) protocol | |||||||||||||||||
|
The MPEG-2 standard defined by ISO 13818-1 supports a range of transmission methods for a range of services. This document provides a threat analysis and derives the security requirements when using the Transport Stream, TS, to support an Internet network-layer using Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) defined in RFC4326. The document also provides the motivation for link-layer security for a ULE Stream. A ULE Stream may be used to send IPv4 packets, IPv6 packets, and other Protocol Data Units (PDUs) to an arbitrarily large number of Receivers supporting unicast and/or multicast transmission. The analysis also describes applicability to the Generic Stream Encapsulation (GSE) defined by the Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) Project. | ||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
IP over DVB (ipdvb)
Last Modified: 2007-11-15
Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/ipdvb
Chair(s):
Internet Area Director(s):
Internet Area Advisor:
Secretary(ies):
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.ukTo 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 betterdeployment 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 (65865 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. 
