Network coding for satellite systems
draft-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites-08
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8975.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Nicolas Kuhn , Emmanuel Lochin | ||
| Last updated | 2019-11-18 | ||
| Replaces | draft-kuhn-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| IETF conflict review | conflict-review-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites, conflict-review-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites, conflict-review-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites, conflict-review-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites, conflict-review-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites, conflict-review-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites | ||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | IRTF state | In RG Last Call | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Document shepherd | Vincent Roca | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8975 (Informational) | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr> |
draft-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites-08
Internet Engineering Task Force N. Kuhn, Ed.
Internet-Draft CNES
Intended status: Informational E. Lochin, Ed.
Expires: May 21, 2020 ISAE-SUPAERO
November 18, 2019
Network coding for satellite systems
draft-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites-08
Abstract
This document is the product of the Coding for Efficient Network
Communications Research Group (NWCRG). This document follows the
taxonomy document [RFC8406] and considers coding as a linear
combination of packets that operate in and above the network layer.
In this context, this memo details a multi-gateway satellite system
to identify use-cases where network coding is relevant. As example,
network coding operating in and above the network layer can be
exploited to cope with residual losses or provide reliable multicast
services. The objective is to contribute to a larger deployment of
such techniques in SATCOM systems. This memo also identifies open
research issues related to the deployment of network coding in SATCOM
systems, such as the interaction between congestion control and
network coding techniques.
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 21, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 21, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems November 2019
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. A note on satellite topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use-cases for improving the SATCOM system performance with
network coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Two-way relay channel mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Reliable multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Hybrid access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Dealing with LAN losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. Dealing with varying channel conditions . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6. Improving the gateway handovers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Research challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. On the joint-use of network coding and congestion control
in SATCOM systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. On the efficient usage of satellite resource . . . . . . 10
4.3. Interaction with virtualized satellite gateways and
terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networks . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
This document is the product of and represents the collaborative work
and consensus of the Coding for Efficient Network Communications
Research Group (NWCRG); it is not an IETF product and is not a
standard. A glossary is proposed in Section 6.
Exploiting network coding techniques at application or transport
layers is an opportunity for improving the end-to-end performance of
SATCOM systems. Physical and link layers coding protection is
usually sufficient to guarranty Quasi-Error Free, with a negligeable
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 21, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems November 2019
delay compared to the propagation time (e.g., with a GEO sat). When
the physical and link layers coding fails, retransmissions add
significant delays. Hence the use of network coding in upper layers
can improve the quality of experience of end users.
We notice an active research activity on network coding techniques
above the network layer and SATCOM. 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
network coding in these systems.
The notations used in this document are based on the taxonomy
document [RFC8406]:
o Channel and link codings are gathered in the PHY layer coding and
are out of the scope of this document.
o FEC (also called Application-Level FEC) operates in and above the
network layer.
o This document considers coding (or coding techniques or coding
schemes) as a linear combination and not as a content coding
(e.g., to compress a video flow).
2. A note on satellite topology
There are multiple SATCOM systems, such as those dedicated to
broadcasting TV or to IoT applications: depending on the purpose of
the SATCOM system, the ground segments are different. This section
focuses on a satellite system that follows the ETSI DVB standards to
provide broadband Internet access. The capacity that is carried out
by one satellite may be higher than the capacity that one single
gateway can carry out: there are usually multiple gateways for one
unique satellite platform.
In this context, Figure 1 shows an example of a multi-gateway
satellite system. More information on a generic SATCOM ground
segment architecture for bidirectional Internet access can be found
in [SAT2017].
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 21, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems November 2019
+--------------------------+
| application servers |
| (data, coding, multicast)|
+--------------------------+
| ... |
-----------------------------------
| | | | | |
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
| network function | | network function |
|(firewall, PEP, etc)| |(firewall, PEP, etc)|
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
| ... | IP packets | ... |
---
+------------------+ +------------------+ |
| access gateway | | access gateway | |
+------------------+ +------------------+ |
| BBFRAME | | gateway
+------------------+ +------------------+ |
| physical gateway | | physical gateway | |
+------------------+ +------------------+ |
---
| PLFRAME |
+------------------+ +------------------+
| outdoor unit | | outdoor unit |
+------------------+ +------------------+
| satellite link |
+------------------+ +------------------+
| outdoor unit | | outdoor unit |
+------------------+ +------------------+
| |
+------------------+ +------------------+
| sat terminals | | sat terminals |
+------------------+ +------------------+
| | | |
+----------+ | +----------+ |
|end user 1| | |end user 3| |
+----------+ | +----------+ |
+----------+ +----------+
|end user 2| |end user 4|
+----------+ +----------+
Figure 1: Data plane functions in a generic satellite multi-gateway
system. More details can be found in DVB standard documents.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 21, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems November 2019
3. Use-cases for improving the SATCOM system performance with network
coding
This section details use-cases where network coding techniques could
improve SATCOM systems.
3.1. Two-way relay channel mode
This use-case considers a two-way communication between end users,
through a satellite link. Figure 2 proposes an illustration of this
scenario.
Satellite terminal A sends a flow A and satellite terminal B sends a
flow B to a coding server. The coding server sends a combination of
both terminal flows. This results in non-negligible capacity savings
and has been demonstrated [ASMS2010]. In the proposed example, a
dedicated coding server is introduced (note that its location could
be different for another deployment use-case). The network coding
operations could also be done at the satellite level, although this
would require lots of computational ressource on-board and may not be
relevant with today's satellites.
-X}- : traffic from satellite terminal X to the server
={X+Y= : traffic from X and Y combined sent from
the server to terminals X and Y
+-----------+ +-----+
|Sat term A |--A}-+ | |
+-----------+ | | | +---------+ +------+
^^ +--| |--A}--| |--A}--|Coding|
|| | SAT |--B}--| Gateway |--B}--|Server|
===={A+B=========| |={A+B=| |={A+B=| |
|| | | +---------+ +------+
vv +--| |
+-----------+ | | |
|Sat term B |--B}-+ | |
+-----------+ +-----+
Figure 2: Network architecture for two way relay channel with NC
3.2. Reliable multicast
Using multicast servers is a way to better exploit the satellite
broadcast capabilities. This approach is proposed in the SHINE ESA
project [I-D.vazquez-nfvrg-netcod-function-virtualization] [SHINE].
This use-case considers adding redundancy to a multicast flow
depending on what has been received by different end-users, resulting
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 21, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems November 2019
in non-negligible scarce resource saving. We propose an illustration
for this scenario in Figure 3.
-Li}- : packet indicating the loss of packet i of a multicast flow M
={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 3: Network architecture for a reliable multicast with NC
A multicast flow (M) is forwarded to both satellite terminals A and
B. However packet Ni (resp. Nj) gets lost at terminal A (resp. B),
and terminal A (resp. B) returns a negative acknowledgment 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 other multicast or broadcast systems,
such as NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) [RFC5740] or File
Delivery over Unidirectional Transport (FLUTE) [RFC6726]. Note that
both NORM and FLUTE are limited to block coding, none of them
supporting sliding window encoding schemes [RFC8406].
3.3. Hybrid access
This use-case considers improving multiple path communications with
network coding at the transport layer. We propose an illustration
for this scenario in Figure 4. 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].
To cope with packet loss (due to either end-user mobility or
physical-layer impairments), network coding could be introduced both
at the CPE and at the concentrator. Apart from packet losses, other
gains could be envisioned, such as a better tolerance to out-of-order
packets which occur when exploited links exhibit high asymetry in
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 21, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems November 2019
terms of RTT. Depending on the ground architecture
[I-D.chin-nfvrg-cloud-5g-core-structure-yang] [SAT2017], some
equipments might be hosting both SATCOM and cellular functions.
-{}- : bidirectional link
+---+ +--------------+
+-{}-|SAT|-{}-|BACKBONE |
+----+ +---+ | +---+ |+------------+|
|End |-{}-|CPE|-{}-| ||CONCENTRATOR||
|User| +---+ | +---+ |+------------+| +-----------+
+----+ |-{}-|DSL|-{}-| |-{}-|Application|
| +---+ | | |Server |
| | | +-----------+
| +---+ | |
+-{}-|LTE|-{}-+--------------+
+---+
Figure 4: Network architecture for an hybrid access using network
coding
3.4. Dealing with LAN losses
This use-case considers the usage of network coding to cope with
cases where the end user connects to the satellite terminal with a
Wi-Fi link that exhibits losses. In the case of encrypted end-to-end
applications based on UDP, PEP cannot operate. The Wi-Fi losses
result in an end-to-end retransmission that would harm the quality of
experience of the end user. In this use-case, adding network coding
techniques could prevent the end-to-end retransmission from occuring.
The architecture is recalled in Figure 5.
-{}- : bidirectional link
-''- : Wi-Fi link
C : where network coding techniques could be introduced
+----+ +---------+ +---+ +--------+ +-------+ +--------+
|End | |Satellite| |SAT| |Physical| |Access | |Network |
|user|-''-|Terminal |-{}-| |-{}-|Gateway |-{}-|Gateway|-{}-|Function|
+----+ +---------+ +---+ +--------+ +-------+ +--------+
C C C C
Figure 5: Network architecture for dealing with LAN losses
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 21, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems November 2019
3.5. Dealing with varying channel conditions
This use-case considers the usage of network coding to cope with
cases where channel condition change in less than a second and the
mechanisms that are exploited to adapt the physical-layer codes
(Adaptative Coding and Modulation (ACM)) may not adapt the modulation
and coding in time: remaining errors could be recovered with higher
layer redundancy packets. This use-case is mostly relevant when
mobile users are considered or when the chosen band induces quick
changes in channel condition (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
network coding is different.
The architecture is recalled in Figure 6.
-{}- : bidirectional link
C : where network coding techniques could be introduced
+---------+ +---+ +--------+ +-------+ +--------+
|Satellite| |SAT| |Physical| |Access | |Network |
|Terminal |-{}-| |-{}-|Gateway |-{}-|Gateway|-{}-|Function|
+---------+ +---+ +--------+ +-------+ +--------+
C C C C
Figure 6: Network architecture for dealing with varying link
characteristics
3.6. 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,
packet losses can occur if the gateways are not properly synchronized
or if the algorithm that is exploited to trigger gateway handovers is
not properly tuned. During these critical phases, network coding can
be added to improve the reliability of the transmission and allow a
seamless gateway handover.
Figure 7 illustrates this use-case.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 21, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems November 2019
-{}- : bidirectional link
! : management interface
C : where network coding techniques could be introduced
C C
+--------+ +-------+ +--------+
|Physical| |Access | |Network |
+-{}-|gateway |-{}-|gateway|-{}-|function|
| +--------+ +-------+ +--------+
| ! !
+---------+ +---+ +---------------+
|Satellite| |SAT| | Control plane |
|Terminal |-{}-| | | manager |
+---------+ +---+ +---------------+
| ! !
| +--------+ +-------+ +--------+
+-{}-|Physical|-{}-|Access |-{}-|Network |
|gateway | |gateway| |function|
+--------+ +-------+ +--------+
C C
Figure 7: Network architecture for dealing with gateway handover
schemes
4. Research challenges
This section proposes a few potential approaches to introduce and use
network coding in SATCOM systems.
4.1. On the joint-use of network coding and congestion control in
SATCOM systems
SATCOM systems typically feature Performance Enhancing Proxy (PEP)
RFC 3135 [RFC3135]. PEPs usually split end-to-end connections and
forward transport or application layer packets to the satellite
baseband gateway that deals with layer-2 and layer-1 encapsulations.
PEP contributes to mitigate congestion in a SATCOM systems. PEP
could host network coding mechanisms and thus support use-cases that
have been discussed in this document.
Deploying network coding in the PEP could be relevant and independent
from the specific characteristics of a SATCOM link. This leads to
research questions on the interaction between network coding and
congestion control.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 21, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems November 2019
4.2. On the efficient usage of satellite resource
The recurrent trade-off in SATCOM systems remains: how much overhead
from redundant reliability packets can be introduced to guarantee a
better end-user QoE while optimizing capacity usage ? At which layer
this supplementary network coding should be added ?
This problem has been tackled in the past for physical-layer code,
but there remains questions on how to adapt the overhead for, e.g.,
the quickly varying channel conditions use-case where ACM may not be
reacting quickly enough.
4.3. Interaction with virtualized satellite gateways and terminals
Related to the foreseen virtualized network infrastructure, network
coding could be easily deployed as VNF. Next generation of SATCOM
ground segments could rely on a virtualized environment. This trend
can also be seen in cellular networks, making these discussions
extendable to other deployment scenarios
[I-D.chin-nfvrg-cloud-5g-core-structure-yang]. As one example, the
network coding VNF 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 efficient radio usage and
easy-to-deploy SATCOM services. Moreover, another challenge related
to a virtualized SATCOM equipment is the management of limited
buffered capacities.
4.4. Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networks
Communications among deep-space platforms and terrestrial gateways
can be a challenge. Reliable end-to-end (E2E) communications over
such paths must cope with long delay and frequent link disruptions;
indeed, E2E connectivity may be available only intermittently or
never. 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.
Moreover, DTN can also be seen as an alternative solution to transfer
the data between a central PEP and a remote PEP.
Coding enables E2E reliable communication over DTN with adaptive re-
encoding, as proposed in [THAI15]. In this case, the use-cases
proposed in Section 3.5 would legitimize the usage of coding within
the DTN stack to improve the channel utilization and the E2E
transmission delay. In this context, the use of erasure coding
techniques inside a Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 21, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems November 2019
(CCSDS) architecture has been specified in [CCSDS-131.5-O-1]. A
research challenge would be on how such network coding can be
integrated in the IETF DTN stack.
5. Conclusion
This document discuses some opportunities to introduce network coding
techniques at a wider scale in satellite telecommunications systems.
Even though this document focuses on satellite systems, it is worth
pointing out that 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 gathers 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.
6. Glossary
The glossary of this memo extends the glossary of the taxonomy
document [RFC8406] as follows:
o ACM : Adaptive 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 Premises Equipment;
o COM: COMmunication;
o DSL: Digital Subscriber Line;
o DTN: Delay/Disruption Tolerant Network;
o DVB: Digital Video Broadcasting;
o E2E: End-to-end;
o ETSI: European Telecommunications Standards Institute;
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 21, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems November 2019
o FEC: Forward Erasure Correction;
o FLUTE: File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport;
o IntraF: Intra-Flow Coding;
o InterF: Inter-Flow Coding;
o IoT: Internet of Things;
o LTE: Long Term Evolution;
o MPC: Multi-Path Coding;
o NC: Network Coding;
o NFV: Network Function Virtualization;
o NORM: NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast;
o PEP: Performance Enhancing Proxy [RFC3135] - 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 QEF: Quasi-Error-Free;
o QoE: Quality-of-Experience;
o QoS: Quality-of-Service;
o SAT: SATellite;
o SATCOM: generic term related to all kinds of SATellite
COMmunication systems;
o SPC: Single-Path Coding;
o VNF: Virtual Network Function.
7. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to John Border, Stuart Card, Tomaso de Cola, Vincent
Roca, Lloyd Wood and Marie-Jose Montpetit for their help in writing
this document.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 21, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems November 2019
8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
9. Security Considerations
Security considerations are inherent to any access network, and in
particular SATCOM systems. The use of FEC or Network Coding in
SATCOM also comes with risks (e.g., a single corrupted redundant
packet may propagate to several flows when they are protected
together in an Inter-Flow coding approach, see section Section 3).
However this is not specific to the SATCOM use-case and this document
does not further elaborate on it.
10. Informative References
[ASMS2010]
De Cola, T. and et. al., "Demonstration at opening session
of ASMS 2010", Advanced Satellite Multimedia Systems
(ASMS) Conference , 2010.
[CCSDS-131.5-O-1]
"Erasure correcting codes for use in near-earth and deep-
space communications", CCSDS Experimental
specification 131.5-0-1, 2014.
[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.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.
[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>.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 21, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems November 2019
[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>.
[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>.
[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",
International Journal on Satellite Communnications and
Networking vol. 36 - https://doi.org/10.1002/sat.1206,
2017.
[SHINE] Pietro Romano, S. and et. al., "Secure Hybrid In Network
caching Environment (SHINE) ESA project", ESA project ,
2017 on-going.
[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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICC.2015.7248441,
June 2015.
Authors' Addresses
Nicolas Kuhn (editor)
CNES
18 Avenue Edouard Belin
Toulouse 31400
France
Email: nicolas.kuhn@cnes.fr
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 21, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems November 2019
Emmanuel Lochin (editor)
ISAE-SUPAERO
10 Avenue Edouard Belin
Toulouse 31400
France
Email: emmanuel.lochin@isae-supaero.fr
Kuhn & Lochin Expires May 21, 2020 [Page 15]