Subject: Re: IP over MPEG-2 Transport

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 14:14:24 -0400

>This email describes a discussion list which will develop a framework
>for efficient transport of IPv4 and IPv6 Datagrams over ISO MPEG-2
>Transport Streams (TS).

Wouldn't it make more sense to transmit MPEG over IP? Then you get the 
benefit of running everywhere IP does, instead of having to come up with 
your own standards for the data layer.

/===============================================================\
|John Stracke                    |Principal Engineer            |
[email-masked]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.       |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.       |
|===============================================================|
|There are many intelligent species in the cosmos. All are owned|
|by cats.                                                       |
\===============================================================/

---

From: "Michael F. Speer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:23:18 -0700 (PDT)

John:

Yes, one would think that MPEG over IP made sense.  However, IP doesn't
run everywhere and the MPEG-2 people made it possible to run IP over
MPEG-2 transport.

Michael

---

From: Mark Atwood <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Apr 2002 12:27:13 -0700

> your own standards for the data layer.

The way that IP has been "winning" is to find ways of carrying it
*everywhere*. There are already many links around the world set up
that carry MPEG-2 TS (in fact, I would not be terribly surprised if
the number of bps worldwide of MPEG-2 TS exceeds that of voice, and
possibly even of "IP over 'normal' WAN transport".

If we can leverage those existing links, and get IP into them,
eventually the IP will become a "must have" feature, and then
eventually the link configuration will be re-engineered and
"inverted", with IP taking it's rightful place at the "true" layer 3.

-- 
Mark Atwood   | Well done is better than well said.
[email-masked] | 
http://www.pobox.com/~mra

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:39:20 -0400

>>>>> "John" == John Stracke <[email-masked]> writes:

    John> Wouldn't it make more sense to transmit MPEG over IP? Then you get the 
    John> benefit of running everywhere IP does, instead of having to come up with 
    John> your own standards for the data layer.

  Yes, that would make sense, and is dealt with the the AVT WG. That isn't
the problem being solved.

  These people want to run IP over satellite television networks, and they
can not easily upgrade the "routers" without either very long arms or a lot
of H_2 + LOX.

]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [

---

From: Ross Finlayson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 21:04:17 -0700

> > Wouldn't it make more sense to transmit MPEG over IP?

In an ideal world, yes.  (In fact, this is already dealt with in RFC 2250, 
which defines how MPEG-1 or 2 elementary or transport streams are carried 
over RTP/UDP/IP.)  But, as usual, we don't live in an ideal world :-)

>"inverted", with IP taking it's rightful place at the "true" layer 3.

Exactly!

         Ross.