Network coding and satellites
draft-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites-01
Internet Engineering Task Force N. Kuhn, Ed.
Internet-Draft CNES
Intended status: Informational E. Lochin, Ed.
Expires: May 14, 2019 ISAE-SUPAERO
Nov 10, 2018
Network coding and satellites
draft-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites-01
Abstract
This memo details a multi-gateway satellite system to identify
multiple opportunities on how coding techniques could be deployed at
a wider scale.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 14, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 14, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Nov 2018
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. A note on satellite topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Status of reliability schemes in actually deployed satellite
systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Details on the use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Two way relay channel mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Reliable multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Hybrid access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Dealing with varying capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5. Improving the gateway handovers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.6. Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networks . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Research challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Deployability in current SATCOM systems . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Interaction with virtualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
Guaranteeing both physical layer robustness and efficient usage of
the radio resource has been in the core design of SATellite
COMmunication (SATCOM) systems. The trade-off often resided in how
much redundancy a system adds to cope from link impairments, without
reducing the good-put when the channel quality is high. There is
usually enough redundancy to guarantee a Quasi-Error Free
transmission. However, physical layer reliability mechanisms may not
recover transmission losses (e.g. with a mobile user) and layer 2 (or
above) re-transmissions induce 500 ms one-way delay with a
geostationary satellite. Further exploiting coding schemes at higher
OSI-layers is an opportunity for releasing constraints on the
physical layer in such cases and improving the performance of SATCOM
systems.
We have noticed an active research activity on coding and SATCOM in
the past. That being said, not much has actually made it to
industrial developments. In this context, this document aims at
identifying opportunities for further usage of coding in these
systems.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 14, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Nov 2018
This document follows the taxonomy of coding techniques for efficient
network communications [RFC8406].
1.1. Glossary
The glossary of this memo extends the glossary of the taxonomy
document [RFC8406] as follows:
o ACM : Adaptative Coding and Modulation;
o BBFRAME: Base-Band FRAME - satellite communication layer 2
encapsulation work as follows: (1) each layer 3 packet is
encapsulated with a Generic Stream Encapsulation (GSE) mechanism,
(2) GSE packets are gathered to create BBFRAMEs, (3) BBFRAMEs
contain information related to how they have to be modulated (4)
BBFRAMEs are forwarded to the physical layer;
o CPE: Customer Premise Equipment;
o DTN: Delay/Disruption Tolerant Network;
o EPC: Evolved Packet Core;
o ETSI: European Telecommunications Standards Institute;
o PEP: Performance Enhanced Proxy - a typical PEP for satellite
communications include compression, caching and TCP acceleration;
o PLFRAME: Physical Layer FRAME - modulated version of a BBFRAME
with additional information (e.g. related to synchronization);
o SATCOM: generic term related to all kind of SATellite
COMmunications systems;
o QoS: Quality-of-Service;
o QoE: Quality-of-Experience;
o VNF: Virtualized Network Function.
1.2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 14, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Nov 2018
2. A note on satellite topology
This section focuses on a generic description of the components
composing a generic satellite system and their interaction. A high
level description of a multi-gateway satellites network is provided.
There exist multiple SATCOM systems, such as those dedicated to
broadcasting TV or to IoT applications: depending on the purpose of
the SATCOM system, ground segments are specific. This memo lays on
SATCOM systems dedicated to Internet access that follows the DVB-S2/
RCS2 standards. In this context, the increase of the available
capacity that is carried out to end users and the need for
reliability results in the need for multiple gateways for one unique
satellite platform.
In this context, Figure 1 shows an example of a multi-gateway
satellite system. More details on a generic SATCOM ground segment
architecture for a bi-directional Internet access can be found in
[SAT2017]. We propose a multi-gateway system since some of the use-
cases described in this document require multiple gateways. In a
multi-gateway system, some elements may be centralized and/or
gathered: the relevance of one approach compared to another depends
on the deployment scenario. More information on these trade-off
discussions can be found in [SAT2017].
It is worth noting that some functional blocks aggregate the traffic
coming from multiple users. Even if coding schemes could be applied
to any individual traffic, it could also work on an aggregate.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 14, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Nov 2018
+---------------------+
| Application servers |
+---------------------+
^ ^ ^
| | |
-----------------------------------
v v v v v v
+------------------+ +------------------+
| network function | | network function |
| (firewall, PEP) | | (firewall, PEP) |
+------------------+ +------------------+
^ ^ ^ ^
| | IP packets | |
v v v v
+------------------+ +------------------+
| access gateway | | access gateway |
+------------------+ +------------------+
^ ^
| BBFRAMEs |
v v
+------------------+ +------------------+
| physical gateway | | physical gateway |
+------------------+ +------------------+
^ ^
| PLFRAMEs |
v v
+------------------+ +------------------+
| outdoor unit | | outdoor unit |
+------------------+ +------------------+
^ ^
| Satellite link |
v v
+------------------+ +------------------+
| sat terminals | | sat terminals |
+------------------+ +------------------+
^ ^
| |
v v
+------------------+ +------------------+
| end user | | end user |
+------------------+ +------------------+
Figure 1: Data plane functions in a generic satellite multi-gateway
system
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 14, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Nov 2018
3. Status of reliability schemes in actually deployed satellite systems
Figure 2 presents the status of the reliability schemes deployment in
satellite systems. The information is based on the taxonomy document
[RFC8406] and the notations are the following: End-to-End Coding
(E2E), Network Coding (NC), Intra-Flow Coding (IntraF), Inter-Flow
Coding (InterF), Single-Path Coding (SP) and Multi-Path Coding (MP).
X1 embodies the source coding that could be used at application level
for instance within QUIC or other video streaming applications: this
is not specific to SATCOM systems, but is relevant for broadband
Internet access discussions.
X2 embodies the physical layer, applied to the PLFRAME, to optimize
the satellite capacity usage: at the physical layer, FEC mechanisms
can be exploited. This aspect is not in the scope of the WG
according to the taxonomoy document [RFC8406].
+------+-------+---------+---------------+-------+
| | Upper | Middle | Communication layers |
| | Appl. | ware | |
+ +-------+---------+---------------+-------+
| |Source | Network | Packetization | PHY |
| |coding | AL-FEC | UDP/IP | layer |
+------+-------+---------+---------------+-------+
|E2E | X1 | | | |
|NC | | | | |
|IntraF| X1 | | | |
|InterF| | | | X2 |
|SP | X1 | | | X2 |
|MP | | | | |
+------+-------+---------+---------------+-------+
Figure 2: Reliability schemes in current satellite systems
Reliability is an inherent part of the physical layer and usually
achieved by using coding techniques. Based on public information,
coding does not seem to be widely used at higher OSI layers, other
than at the application layer.
4. Details on the use cases
This section details use-cases where coding schemes could improve the
overall performance of a SATCOM system (e.g. considering a more
efficient usage of the satellite resource, delivery delay, delivery
ratio).
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 14, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Nov 2018
It is worth noting that these use-cases focus more on the middleware
(e.g. aggregation nodes) and packetization UDP/IP of Figure 2.
Indeed, there are already lots of recovery mechanisms at the physical
layer in currently deployed systems while E2E source coding are done
at the application level. In a multi-gateway SATCOM Internet access,
the specific opportunities are more relevant in specific SATCOM
components such as the "network function" block or the "access
gateway" of Figure 1.
4.1. Two way relay channel mode
This use-case considers a two-way communication between end users,
through a satellite link. We propose an illustration of this
scenario in Figure 3.
Satellite terminal A (resp. B) transmits a flow A (resp. B) to a
server hosting NC capabilities, which forward a combination of the
two flows to both terminals. This results in non-negligible
bandwidth saving and has been demonstrated at ASMS 2010 in Cagliari
[ASMS2010]. Moreover, with On-Board Processing satellite payloads,
the coding operations could be done at the satellite level, thus
reducing the end-to-end delay of the communication.
-X}- : traffic from satellite terminal X to the server
={X+Y= : traffic from X and Y combined transmitted from
the server to terminals X and Y
+-----------+ +-----+
|Sat term A |--A}-+ | |
+-----------+ | | | +---------+ +------+
^^ +--| |--A}--| |--A}--| |
|| | SAT |--B}--| Gateway |--B}--|Server|
===={A+B=========| |={A+B=| |={A+B=| |
|| | | +---------+ +------+
vv +--| |
+-----------+ | | |
|Sat term B |--B}-+ | |
+-----------+ +-----+
Figure 3: Network architecture for two way relay channel with NC
4.2. Reliable multicast
This use-case considers adding redundancy to a multicast flow
depending on what has been received by different end-users, resulting
in non-negligible scarce resource saving. We propose an illustration
for this scenario in Figure 4.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 14, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Nov 2018
A multicast flow (M) is forwarded to both satellite terminals A and
B. However packet Ni (resp. Nj) get lost at terminal A (resp. B),
and terminal A (resp. B) returns a negative acknowledgement Li
(resp. Lj), indicating that the packet is missing. Then either the
access gateway or the multicast server includes a repair packet
(rather than the individual Ni and Nj packets) in the multicast flow
to let both terminals recover from losses. This could be achieved by
using NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) [RFC5740] in situations
where a feedback is possible and desirable, or FLUTE/ALC [RFC6726]
when it is not the case. Note that currently both NORM nor FLUTE/ALC
are limited to block coding, none of them supporting sliding window
encoding schemes [RFC8406].
-Li}- : packet indicated the loss of packet i of a multicast flow
={M== : multicast flow including the missing packets
+-----------+ +-----+
|Sat term A |-Li}-+ | |
+-----------+ | | | +---------+ +------+
^^ +-| |-Li}--| | |Multi |
|| | SAT |-Lj}--| Gateway |--|Cast |
===={M==========| |={M===| | |Server|
|| | | +---------+ +------+
vv +-| |
+-----------+ | | |
|Sat term B |-Lj}-+ | |
+-----------+ +-----+
Figure 4: Network architecture for a reliable multicast with NC
4.3. Hybrid access
This use-case considers the use of multiple path management with
coding at the transport level to increase the reliability and/or the
total capacity (using multiple path does not guarantee an improvement
of both the reliability and the total bandwidth). We propose an
illustration for this scenario in Figure 5. This use-case is
inspired from the Broadband Access via Integrated Terrestrial
Satellite Systems (BATS) project and has been published as an ETSI
Technical Report [ETSITR2017]. It is worth nothing that this kind of
architecture is also discussed in the MPTCP working group
[I-D.boucadair-mptcp-dhc].
To cope with packet loss (due to either end-user mobility or physical
layer impairments), coding could be introduced in both the CPE and at
the concentrator.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 14, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Nov 2018
-{}- : bidirectional link
+-----+ +----------------+
+-{}-| SAT |-{}-| BACKBONE |
+------+ +------+ | +-----+ | +------------+ |
| End |-{}-| CPE |-{}-| | |CONCENTRATOR| |
| User | | | | +-----+ | +------------+ | +------+
+------+ +------+ |-{}-| DSL |-{}-| |-{}-|Data |
| +-----+ | | |Server|
| | | +------+
| +-----+ | |
+-{}-| LTE |-{}-| |
+-----+ +----------------+
Figure 5: Network architecture for an hybrid access using NC
4.4. Dealing with varying capacity
This use-case considers the usage of coding to overcome cases where
the wireless link characteristics quickly change overtime and where
the physical layer codes could not be made robust in time. This is
particularly relevant when end users are moving and the channel shows
important variations [IEEEVT2001].
The architecture is recalled in Figure 6. In these cases, Adaptative
Coding and Modulation (ACM) may not adapt the modulation and coding
accordingly and remaining errors could be recovered with higher
layers redundancy packets. The coding schemes could be applied at
the access gateway or the network function block levels to increase
the reliability of the transmission. This use-case is mostly
relevant for when mobile users are considered or when the chosen band
induce a required physical layer coding that may change over time (Q/
V bands, Ka band, etc.). Depending on the use-case (e.g. very high
frequency bands, mobile users) or depending on the deployment use-
cases (e.g. performance of the network between each individual
block), the relevance of adding coding is different. Then, depending
on the OSI level at which coding is applied, the impact on the
satellite terminal is different: coding may be applied on IP packets
or on layer-2 proprietary format packets.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 14, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Nov 2018
-{}- : bidirectional link
+---------+ +---+ +--------+ +-------+ +--------+
|Satellite| |SAT| |Physical| |Access | |Network |
|Terminal |-{}-| |-{}-|gateway |-{}-|gateway|-{}-|function|
+---------+ +---+ +--------+ +-------+ +--------+
NC NC NC NC
Figure 6: Network architecture for dealing with varying link
characteristics with NC
4.5. Improving the gateway handovers
This use-case considers the recovery of packets that may be lost
during gateway handovers. Whether this is for off-loading one given
equipment or because the transmission quality is not the same on each
gateway, changing the transmission gateway may be relevant. However,
if gateways are not properly synchronized, this may result in packet
loss. During these critical phases, coding can be added to improve
the reliability of the transmission and propose a seamless gateway
handover. In this case, the coding could be applied at either the
access gateway or the network function block. The entity responsible
for taking the decision to change the communication gateway and
changing the routes is the control plane manager; this entity
exploits a management interface.
An example architecture for this use-case is showed in Figure 7. It
is worth noting that depending on the ground architecture
[I-D.chin-nfvrg-cloud-5g-core-structure-yang] [SAT2017], some
equipment might be communalised.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 14, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Nov 2018
-{}- : bidirectional link
! : management interface
NC NC
+--------+ +-------+ +--------+
|Physical| |Access | |Network |
+-{}-|gateway |-{}-|gateway|-{}-|function|
| +--------+ +-------+ +--------+
| ! !
+---------+ +---+ +---------------+
|Satellite| |SAT| | Control plane |
|Terminal |-{}-| | | manager |
+---------+ +---+ +---------------+
| ! !
| +--------+ +-------+ +--------+
+-{}-|Physical|-{}-|Access |-{}-|Network |
|gateway | |gateway| |function|
+--------+ +-------+ +--------+
NC NC
Figure 7: Network architecture for dealing with gateway handover
schemes with NC
4.6. Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networks
Establishing communications from terrestrial gateways to aerospace
components is a challenge due to the distances involved. As a matter
of fact, reliable end-to-end (E2E) communications over such links
must cope with long delay and frequent link disruptions. Delay/
Disruption Tolerant Networking [RFC4838] is a solution to enable
reliable internetworking space communications where both standard ad-
hoc routing and E2E Internet protocols cannot be used. DTN can also
be seen as an alternative solution to cope with satellite
communications usually managed by PEP. Therefore, the transport of
data over such networks requires the use of replication, erasure
codes and multipath protocol schemes [WANG05] [ZHANG06] to improve
the bundle delivery ratio and/or delivery delay. For instance,
transport protocols such as LTP [RFC5326] for long delay links with
connectivity disruptions, use Automatic Repeat-reQuest (ARQ) and
unequal error protection to reduce the amount of non-mandatory re-
transmissions. The work in [TOURNOUX10] proposed upon LTP a robust
streaming method based on an on-the-fly coding scheme, where encoding
and decoding procedures are done at the source and destination nodes,
respectively. However, each link path loss rate may have various
order of magnitude and re-encoding at an intermediate node to adapt
the redundancy can be mandatory to prevent transmission wasting.
This idea has been put forward in
[I-D.zinky-dtnrg-random-binary-fec-scheme] and
[I-D.zinky-dtnrg-erasure-coding-extension], where the authors
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 14, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Nov 2018
proposed an encoding process at intermediate DTN nodes to explore the
possibilities of Forward Error Correction (FEC) schemes inside the
bundle protocol [RFC5050]. Another proposal is the use of erasure
coding inside the CCSDS (Consultative Committee for Space Data
Systems) architecture [COLA11]. The objective is to extend the CCSDS
File Delivery Protocol (CFDP) [CCSDS-FDP] with erasure coding
capabilities where a Low Density Parity Check (LDPC) [RFC6816] code
with a large block size is chosen. Recently, on-the-fly erasure
coding schemes [LACAN08] [SUNDARARAJAN08] [TOURNOUX11] have shown
their benefits in terms of recovery capability and configuration
complexity compared to traditional FEC schemes. Using a feedback
path when available, on-the-fly schemes can be used to enable E2E
reliable communication over DTN with adaptive re-encoding as proposed
in [THAI15].
5. Research challenges
5.1. Deployability in current SATCOM systems
SATCOM systems typically feature Performance Enhancement Proxy
RFC 3135 [RFC3135] which could be relevant to host coding mechanisms
and thus support the use-cases that have been discussed in Section 4.
PEP usually split TCP end-to-end connections and forward TCP packets
to the satellite baseband gateway that deals with layer 2 and layer 1
encapsulations. Deploying coding schemes at the TCP level in these
equipments could be relevant and independent from the specificities
of a SATCOM link. That being said, we can notice a research issue in
the recurrent trade-off in SATCOM systems that is related to the
amount of reliability that you introduce in the first transmission to
guarantee a better end-user QoE and the usage of the scarce resource.
5.2. Interaction with virtualization
Related to the foreseen virtualized network infrastructure, the
coding schemes could be proposed as Virtual Network Function (VNF)
and their deployability enhanced. The architecture for the next
generation of SATCOM ground segments would rely on a virtualized
environment. This trend can also be seen, making the discussions on
the deployability of coding in SATCOM extendable to other deployment
scenarios [I-D.chin-nfvrg-cloud-5g-core-structure-yang]. As one
example, the coding VNF functions deployment in a virtualized
environment is presented in
[I-D.vazquez-nfvrg-netcod-function-virtualization]. A research
challenge would be the optimization of the NFV service function
chaining, considering a virtualized infrastructure and other SATCOM
specific functions, to guarantee an efficient radio resource
utilization and easy to deploy SATCOM services.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 14, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Nov 2018
6. Conclusion
This document presents the current deployment of coding in some
satellite telecommunications systems along with a discussion on the
multiple opportunities to introduce these techniques at a wider
scale.
Even if this document focuses on satellite systems, it is worth
pointing out that the some scenarios proposed may be relevant to
other wireless telecommunication systems. As one example, the
generic architecture proposed in Figure 1 may be mapped to cellular
networks as follows: the 'network function' block gather some of the
functions of the Evolved Packet Core subsystem, while the 'access
gateway' and 'physical gateway' blocks gather the same type of
functions as the Universal Mobile Terrestrial Radio Access Network.
This mapping extends the opportunities identified in this draft since
they may be also relevant for cellular networks.
7. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Tomaso de Cola, Vincent Roca, Lloyd Wood and Marie-
Jose Montpetit for their help in writting this document.
8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
9. Security Considerations
Security considerations are inherent to any access network. SATCOM
systems introduce standard security mechanisms. In particular, there
are some specificities related to the fact that all users under the
coverage can record all the packets that are being transmitted, such
as in LTE networks. On the specific scenario of NC in SATCOM
systems, there are no specific security considerations.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 14, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Nov 2018
10.2. Informative References
[ASMS2010]
De Cola, T. and et. al., "Demonstration at opening session
of ASMS 2010", ASMS , 2010.
[CCSDS-FDP]
"CCSDS File Delivery Protocol, Recommendation for Space
Data System Standards", CCSDS 727.0-B-4, Blue Book num. 3,
2007.
[COLA11] De Cola, T., Paolini, E., Liva, G., and G. Calzolari,
"Reliability options for data communications in the future
deep-space missions", Proceedings of the IEEE vol. 99
issue 11, 2011.
[ETSITR2017]
"Satellite Earth Stations and Systems (SES); Multi-link
routing scheme in hybrid access network with heterogeneous
links", ETSI TR 103 351, 2017.
[I-D.boucadair-mptcp-dhc]
Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., and T. Reddy, "DHCP Options
for Network-Assisted Multipath TCP (MPTCP)", draft-
boucadair-mptcp-dhc-08 (work in progress), October 2017.
[I-D.chin-nfvrg-cloud-5g-core-structure-yang]
Chen, C. and Z. Pan, "Yang Data Model for Cloud Native 5G
Core structure", draft-chin-nfvrg-cloud-5g-core-structure-
yang-00 (work in progress), December 2017.
[I-D.vazquez-nfvrg-netcod-function-virtualization]
Vazquez-Castro, M., Do-Duy, T., Romano, S., and A. Tulino,
"Network Coding Function Virtualization", draft-vazquez-
nfvrg-netcod-function-virtualization-02 (work in
progress), November 2017.
[I-D.zinky-dtnrg-erasure-coding-extension]
Zinky, J., Caro, A., and G. Stein, "Bundle Protocol
Erasure Coding Extension", draft-zinky-dtnrg-erasure-
coding-extension-00 (work in progress), August 2012.
[I-D.zinky-dtnrg-random-binary-fec-scheme]
Zinky, J., Caro, A., and G. Stein, "Random Binary FEC
Scheme for Bundle Protocol", draft-zinky-dtnrg-random-
binary-fec-scheme-00 (work in progress), August 2012.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 14, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Nov 2018
[IEEEVT2001]
Fontan, F., Vazquez-Castro, M., Cabado, C., Garcia, J.,
and E. Kubista, "Statistical modeling of the LMS channel",
BEER Transactions on Vehicular Technology vol. 50 issue 6,
2001.
[LACAN08] Lacan, J. and E. Lochin, "Rethinking reliability for long-
delay networks", International Workshop on Satellite and
Space Communications , October 2008.
[RFC3135] Border, J., Kojo, M., Griner, J., Montenegro, G., and Z.
Shelby, "Performance Enhancing Proxies Intended to
Mitigate Link-Related Degradations", RFC 3135,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3135, June 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3135>.
[RFC4838] Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst,
R., Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant
Networking Architecture", RFC 4838, DOI 10.17487/RFC4838,
April 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4838>.
[RFC5050] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol
Specification", RFC 5050, DOI 10.17487/RFC5050, November
2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5050>.
[RFC5326] Ramadas, M., Burleigh, S., and S. Farrell, "Licklider
Transmission Protocol - Specification", RFC 5326,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5326, September 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5326>.
[RFC5740] Adamson, B., Bormann, C., Handley, M., and J. Macker,
"NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Transport
Protocol", RFC 5740, DOI 10.17487/RFC5740, November 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5740>.
[RFC6726] Paila, T., Walsh, R., Luby, M., Roca, V., and R. Lehtonen,
"FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport",
RFC 6726, DOI 10.17487/RFC6726, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6726>.
[RFC6816] Roca, V., Cunche, M., and J. Lacan, "Simple Low-Density
Parity Check (LDPC) Staircase Forward Error Correction
(FEC) Scheme for FECFRAME", RFC 6816,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6816, December 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6816>.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 14, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Nov 2018
[RFC8406] Adamson, B., Adjih, C., Bilbao, J., Firoiu, V., Fitzek,
F., Ghanem, S., Lochin, E., Masucci, A., Montpetit, M-J.,
Pedersen, M., Peralta, G., Roca, V., Ed., Saxena, P., and
S. Sivakumar, "Taxonomy of Coding Techniques for Efficient
Network Communications", RFC 8406, DOI 10.17487/RFC8406,
June 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8406>.
[SAT2017] Ahmed, T., Dubois, E., Dupe, JB., Ferrus, R., Gelard, P.,
and N. Kuhn, "Software-defined satellite cloud RAN", Int.
J. Satell. Commun. Network. vol. 36, 2017.
[SUNDARARAJAN08]
Sundararajan, J., Shah, D., and M. Medard, "ARQ for
network coding", IEEE Int. Symp. on Information Theory ,
July 2008.
[THAI15] Thai, T., Chaganti, V., Lochin, E., Lacan, J., Dubois, E.,
and P. Gelard, "Enabling E2E reliable communications with
adaptive re-encoding over delay tolerant networks",
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Communications , June 2015.
[TOURNOUX10]
Tournoux, P., Lochin, E., Leguay, J., and J. Lacan, "On
the benefits of random linear coding for unicast
applications in disruption tolerant networks", Proceedings
of the IEEE International Conference on Communications ,
2010.
[TOURNOUX11]
Tournoux, P., Lochin, E., Lacan, J., Bouabdallah, A., and
V. Roca, "On-the-fly erasure coding for real-time video
applications", IEEE Trans. on Multimedia vol. 13 issue 4,
August 2011.
[WANG05] Wang, Y. and et. al., "Erasure-coding based routing for
opportunistic networks", Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM
workshop on Delay-tolerant networking , 2005.
[ZHANG06] Zhang, X. and et. al., "On the benefits of random linear
coding for unicast applications in disruption tolerant
networks", Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium
on Modeling and Optimization in Mobile, Ad Hoc and
Wireless Networks , 2006.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 14, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Nov 2018
Authors' Addresses
Nicolas Kuhn (editor)
CNES
18 Avenue Edouard Belin
Toulouse 31400
France
Email: nicolas.kuhn@cnes.fr
Emmanuel Lochin (editor)
ISAE-SUPAERO
10 Avenue Edouard Belin
Toulouse 31400
France
Email: emmanuel.lochin@isae-supaero.fr
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 14, 2019 [Page 17]