<html>
<font color="#0000FF">At 11:54 AM 3/24/2004, Greg J Kazz wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>The current version of the CCSDS
encapsulation packet header allows for two options that are not 32-bit
compatible. We are proposing a change to the header in the attachment, so
that the header would be 32-bit compatible.<br>
This change effects 3 CCSDS recommendations: 2 in the SLS area and one in
the SIS area (Space Packet).</font></blockquote><br>
Greg: this comment is completely off the top of my head, but if we are
thinking of screwing around with the CCSDS Encapsulation header then is
there any mileage to be gained by making it compatible with the new
"Ultra Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) for transmission of IP
datagrams over MPEG-2/DVB networks" --<br><br>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipdvb-ule-00.txt" eudora="autourl">http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipdvb-ule-00.txt</a><br><br>
What I'm thinking here is that if space Network layers had a common
encapsulation interface that provides a standard convergence service for
a variety of underlying space link services, we might gain a lot of
future flexibility. IP traffic could then run over CCSDS links, or DVB
links, with a common interface shim.<br><br>
Could someone take a look at this early-on just to gauge the feasibility?
It seems to me that Gorry Fairhurst's work is not yet cast in stone - so
is there a way for us to get our oar in his water so that his ULE and our
CCSDS Encapsulation protocol both converge within his Internet Draft -
thus increasing the credibility of IP-over-CCSDS? <br><br>
///adrian<br>
</html>