Network coding and satellites
draft-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites-00
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 | 2018-10-17 (Latest revision 2018-10-05) | ||
| 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 | (None) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8975 (Informational) | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites-00
Internet Engineering Task Force N. Kuhn, Ed.
Internet-Draft CNES
Intended status: Informational E. Lochin, Ed.
Expires: April 8, 2019 ISAE-SUPAERO
Oct 5, 2018
Network coding and satellites
draft-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites-00
Abstract
This memo presents the current deployment of network coding in some
satellite telecommunications systems along with a discussion on the
multiple opportunities to introduce these techniques 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 April 8, 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 April 8, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Oct 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 network coding 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 . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Research challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Deployability in current SATCOM systems . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Interaction with NFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
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 had to add to cope from link impairments,
without reducing the good-put when the channel quality is high.
Generally speaking, enough redundancy is added so as to guarantee a
Quasi-Error Free transmission; however, there are cases where the
physical layer could hardly recover the transmission losses (e.g.
with a mobile user) and layer 2 (or above) re-transmissions induce an
at least 500 ms delay with a geostationary satellite. Further
exploiting network coding schemes at higher OSI-layers is an
opportunity for releasing constraints on the physical layer and
improving the performance of SATCOM systems when the physical layer
is challenged. We have noticed an active research activity on how
network coding and SATCOM in the past. That being said, not much has
actually made it to industrial developments. In this context, this
memo aims at:
Kuhn & Lochin Expires April 8, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Oct 2018
o summing up the current deployment of network coding schemes over
LEO and GEO satellite systems;
o identifying opportunities for further usage of network coding in
these systems.
1.1. Glossary
The glossary of this memo is related to the network coding taxonomy
document [RFC8406].
The glossary is extended as follows:
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 April 8, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Oct 2018
2. A note on satellite topology
The objective of this section is to provide both a generic
description of the components composing a generic satellite system
and their interaction. It provides a high level description of a
multi-gateway satellites network. 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 network coding schemes could be
applied to any individual traffic, it could also work on an
aggregate.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires April 8, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Oct 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 April 8, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Oct 2018
3. Status of network coding in actually deployed satellite systems
Figure 2 presents the status of the network coding 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: for video streaming on a broadband access. X2 embodies
the physical layer, applied to the PLFRAME, to optimize the satellite
capacity usage. Furthermore, at the physical layer and when random
accesses are exploited, FEC mechanisms are exploited. It is worth
pointing out that NC is an inherent part of the physical layer of
satellite systems, but based on public information, NC does not seem
to be widely used at higher OSI layers.
+------+-------+---------+---------------+-------+
| | 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: Network coding in current satellite systems
4. Details on the use cases
This section details use-cases where network 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).
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
and access layers 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
Kuhn & Lochin Expires April 8, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Oct 2018
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 network 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.
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
Kuhn & Lochin Expires April 8, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Oct 2018
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
network coding at the transport level to increase the reliability
and/or the total bandwidth (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), network coding could be introduced in both the
CPE and at the concentrator.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires April 8, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Oct 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 network 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. The network 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 network coding is
different. Then, depending on the OSI level at which network coding
is applied, the impact on the satellite terminal is different:
network coding may be applied on IP packets or on layer-2 proprietary
format packets.
-{}- : 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
Kuhn & Lochin Expires April 8, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Oct 2018
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, network coding can be added to
improve the reliability of the transmission and propose a seamless
gateway handover. In this case, the network 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.
-{}- : 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/
Kuhn & Lochin Expires April 8, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Oct 2018
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
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 network 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 network coding schemes at the
TCP level in these equipments could be relevant and independant 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
Kuhn & Lochin Expires April 8, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Oct 2018
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 NFV
Related to the foreseen virtualized network infrastructure, the
network coding schemes could be proposed as 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 network coding in SATCOM extendable to other deployment scenarios
[I-D.chin-nfvrg-cloud-5g-core-structure-yang]. As one example, the
network 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.
6. Conclusion
This document presents presents the current deployment of network
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 and Marie-Jose Montpetit.
8. Contributors
Tomaso de Cola, Marie-Jose Montpetit.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires April 8, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Oct 2018
9. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
10. 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.
11. References
11.1. 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>.
11.2. 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.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires April 8, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Oct 2018
[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.
[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>.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires April 8, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Oct 2018
[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>.
[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.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires April 8, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Oct 2018
[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.
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 April 8, 2019 [Page 16]