Internet Engineering Task Force N. Kuhn, Ed.
Internet-Draft CNES
Intended status: Informational E. Lochin, Ed.
Expires: August 30, 2020 ISAE-SUPAERO
February 27, 2020
Network coding for satellite systems
draft-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites-10
Abstract
This document is the product of the Coding for Efficient Network
Communications Research Group (NWCRG). It conforms to the directions
found in the NWCRG taxonomy [RFC8406]. Thus, the scope of the
document is network coding as a linear combination of packets in and
above the network layer. Physical and MAC layer coding are beyond
the scope of the document. The draft focuses on a multi-gateway
satellite system and identifies the use-cases where network coding
provides significant performance improvements. The objective is to
contribute to a larger deployment of network coding techniques in
SATCOM to complement already implemented loss recovery mechanisms.
The draft also identifies open research issues related to the
deployment of network coding in SATCOM systems.
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 August 30, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires August 30, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems February 2020
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 Networks Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use-cases for Improving SATCOM System Performance Using
Network Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Two-way Relay Channel Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Reliable Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Hybrid Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. LAN Packet Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. Varying Channel Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6. Improving Gateway Handover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Research Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Joint-use of Network Coding and Congestion Control in
SATCOM Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Efficient Use of Satellite Resources . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
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); while it is not an IETF product and not a
standard it intends to inform the SATCOM and Internet research
communities about recent developments in Network Coding. A glossary
is proposed in Section 6 to clarify the terminology use throughout
the document.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires August 30, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems February 2020
As will be shown in this draft, the implementation of network coding
techniques above the network layer of the ISO model, at application
or transport layers, offers an opportunity for improving the end-to-
end performance of SATCOM systems. While physical- and link-layer
coding error protection is usually enough to provide Quasi-Error Free
transmission thus minimizing packet loss, when the physical and link
layers coding fail or that residual errors create packet losses that
greatly interfere with Internet protocols, retransmissions add
significant delays because especially in geostationary system with
over 0.7 second round-trip delays. Hence the use of network coding
at the upper layers can improve the quality of service in SATCOM
subnetworks and eventually favorably impact the experience of end
users.
While there is an active research Community working on network coding
techniques above the network layer in general and in SATCOM in
particular, not much of this work made it to commercial systems in
the satellite industry. In this context, this document aims at
identifying opportunities for further usage of network coding in
commercial SATCOM networks.
The notation used in this document is based on the NWCRG taxonomy
[RFC8406]:
o Channel and link error correcting codes are considered part of the
PHY layer error protection and are out of the scope of this
document.
o FEC (also called Application-Level FEC) operates in and above the
network layer and targets packet loss recovery.
o This document considers only coding (or coding techniques or
coding schemes) that use a linear combination of packets and
excludes for example content coding (e.g., to compress a video
flow) or other non-linear operation.
2. A Note on Satellite Networks Topology
There are multiple SATCOM systems, for example broadcast TV, point to
point communication or IoT and monitoring. Therefore, depending on
the purpose of the system, the associated ground segments
architecture will be different. This section focuses on a satellite
system that follows the ETSI DVB standards to provide broadband
Internet access via ground-based gateways. One must note that the
overall data capacity of one satellite may be higher than the
capacity that one single gateway support. Hence, there are usually
multiple gateways for one unique satellite platform.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires August 30, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems February 2020
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].
+--------------------------+
| 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 August 30, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems February 2020
3. Use-cases for Improving SATCOM System Performance Using Network
Coding
This section details use-cases where network coding techniques could
improve SATCOM system performance.
3.1. Two-way Relay Channel Mode
This use-case considers two-way communication between end-users,
through a satellite link as seen in Figure 2.
Satellite terminal A sends a packet flow A and satellite terminal B
sends a packet flow B to a coding server. The coding server then
sends a combination of both flows instead of each individual flows.
This results in non-negligible capacity savings that has been
demonstrated in the past [ASMS2010]. In the example, a dedicated
coding server is introduced (note that its location could be
different based on deployment use-case). The network coding
operations could also be done at the satellite level, although this
would require a lot of computational resource on-board and may not be
supported by 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 using NC
3.2. Reliable Multicast
The use of multicast servers is one way to better utilize a satellite
broadcast capabilities. Multicast 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 August 30, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems February 2020
in non-negligible savings of the scarce SATCOM resources. This
scenario is shown 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 using NC
A multicast flow (M) is forwarded to both satellite terminals A and
B. However packet Ni (respectively Nj) gets lost at terminal A
(respectively B), and terminal A (respectively B) returns a negative
acknowledgment Li (respectively Lj), indicating that the packet is
missing. Using NC, either the access gateway or the multicast server
can include a repair packet (rather than the individual Ni and Nj
packets) in the multicast flow to let both terminals recover from
losses.
This could also 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]. Both
NORM and FLUTE are limited to block coding, none of them supporting
more flexible sliding window encoding schemes that allow decoding
before receiving the whole block an added delay benefit [RFC8406].
3.3. Hybrid Access
This use-case considers improving multiple path communications with
network coding at the transport layer (see Figure 4). This use-case
is inspired by 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 residual errors), network coding can be introduced
both at the CPE and at the concentrator. Apart from packet losses,
other gains from this approach include a better tolerance to out-of-
Kuhn & Lochin Expires August 30, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems February 2020
order packet delivery which occur when exploited links exhibit high
asymmetry in terms of RTT. Depending on the ground architecture
[I-D.chin-nfvrg-cloud-5g-core-structure-yang] [SAT2017], some ground
equipment might be hosting both SATCOM and cellular network
functionality.
-{}- : bidirectional link
+---+ +--------------+
+-{}-|SAT|-{}-|BACKBONE |
+----+ +---+ | +---+ |+------------+|
|End |-{}-|CPE|-{}-| ||CONCENTRATOR||
|User| +---+ | +---+ |+------------+| +-----------+
+----+ |-{}-|DSL|-{}-| |-{}-|Application|
| +---+ | | |Server |
| | | +-----------+
| +---+ | |
+-{}-|LTE|-{}-+--------------+
+---+
Figure 4: Network Architecture for a Hybrid Access Using Network
Coding
3.4. LAN Packet Losses
This use-case considers using network coding in the scenario where a
lossy WIFI link is used to connect to the SATCOM network. When
encrypted end-to-end applications based on UDP are used, a PEP cannot
operate hence other mechanism need to be used. The WIFI packet
losses will result in an end-to-end retransmission that will harm the
end-user quality of experience and poorly utilize SATCOM bottleneck
resource for non-revenue generating traffic. In this use-case,
adding network coding techniques will prevent the end-to-end
retransmission from occurring since the packet losses will be
recovered.
The architecture is shown in Figure 5.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires August 30, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems February 2020
-{}- : 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
3.5. Varying Channel Conditions
This use-case considers the usage of network coding to cope with sub
second physical channel condition changes where the physical-layer
mechanisms (Adaptive Coding and Modulation (ACM)) may not adapt the
modulation and error-correction coding in time: the residual errors
lead to higher layer packet losses that can be recovered with network
coding. This use-case is mostly relevant when mobile users are
considered or when the satellite frequency band introduces 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 data block), the relevance of adding
network coding is different.
The system architecture is shown 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 Gateway Handover
This use-case considers the recovery of packets that may be lost
during gateway handover. Whether for off-loading a given equipment
or because the transmission quality differs from gateway to gateway,
switching the transmission gateway may be beneficial. However,
packet losses can occur if the gateways are not properly synchronized
Kuhn & Lochin Expires August 30, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems February 2020
or if the algorithm used to trigger gateway handover 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.
-{}- : 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
4. Research Challenges
This section proposes a few potential approaches to introduce and use
network coding in SATCOM systems.
4.1. Joint-use of Network Coding and Congestion Control in SATCOM
Systems
Many SATCOM systems typically use 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 encapsulation.
PEPs contribute to mitigate congestion in a SATCOM systems by
limiting the impact of long delays on Internet protocols. A PEP
mechanism could also include network coding operation and thus
support the use-cases that have been discussed in the Section 3 of
this document.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires August 30, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems February 2020
Deploying network coding in the PEP could be relevant and be
independent from the specifics of a SATCOM link. This however leads
to research questions dealing with the potential interaction between
network coding and congestion control.
4.2. Efficient Use of Satellite Resources
There is a recurrent trade-off in SATCOM systems: 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 redundancy should be added ?
This problem has been tackled in the past by the deployment of
physical-layer error-correction codes, but there remains questions on
adapting the coding overhead and added delay for, e.g., the quickly
varying channel conditions use-case where ACM may not be reacting
quickly enough as was discussed on the previous section.
4.3. Interaction with Virtualized Satellite Gateways and Terminals
In the emerging virtualized network infrastructure, network coding
could be easily deployed as a VNF. The next generation of SATCOM
ground segments will rely on a virtualized environment to integrate
to terrestrial networks. This trend towards NFV is also central to
5G and next generation cellular networks, making this research
applicable 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 has been
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, in order to guarantee efficient radio-link
usage and provide easy-to-deploy SATCOM services. Moreover, another
challenge related to a virtualized SATCOM equipment is the management
of limited buffered capacities in large gateways.
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 very long delays and frequent link
disruptions; indeed, E2E connectivity may be available only
intermittently. 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 data between a central PEP and a remote PEP.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires August 30, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems February 2020
Network Coding enables E2E reliable communications over a DTN with
potential adaptive re-encoding, as proposed in [THAI15]. Here, the
use-cases proposed in Section 3.5 would legitimize the usage of
network coding within the DTN stack to improve the physical channel
utilization and minimize the effects of the E2E transmission delays.
In this context, the use of packet erasure coding techniques inside a
Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) architecture
has been specified in [CCSDS-131.5-O-1]. One research challenge
remains on how such network coding can be integrated in the IETF DTN
stack.
5. Conclusion
This document introduces some wide-scale network coding techniques
opportunities in satellite telecommunications systems.
Even though this document focuses on satellite systems, it is worth
pointing out that some scenarios proposed here may be relevant to
other wireless telecommunication systems. As one example, the
generic architecture proposed in Figure 1 may be mapped onto 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 also be 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;
Kuhn & Lochin Expires August 30, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems February 2020
o DVB: Digital Video Broadcasting;
o E2E: End-to-end;
o ETSI: European Telecommunications Standards Institute;
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.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires August 30, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems February 2020
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.
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.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires August 30, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems February 2020
[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>.
[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.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires August 30, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Network coding for satellite systems February 2020
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 August 30, 2020 [Page 15]