Network coding and satellites
draft-kuhn-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Nicolas Kuhn , Emmanuel Lochin , Harald Skinnemoen , Samah A. M. Ghanem , Josu Bilbao , Goiuri Peralta | ||
| Last updated | 2017-10-30 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites, draft-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites, draft-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites, RFC 8975 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-kuhn-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites-01
Internet Engineering Task Force N. Kuhn, Ed.
Internet-Draft CNES
Intended status: Informational E. Lochin, Ed.
Expires: May 3, 2018 ISAE
H. Skinnemoen
AnsuR Technologies
S. Ghanem
Independent Senior Researcher
J. Bilbao
G. Peralta
Ikerlan
October 30, 2017
Network coding and satellites
draft-kuhn-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites-01
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 technics 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 3, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites October 2017
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
1.1. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. A note on satellite topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Status of network coding in actually deployed satellite
systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Opportunities for more network coding in satellite systems . 5
5. Deployability and related use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Network coding and VNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Network coding and PEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
Network coding schemes are inherent part of the satellite systems,
since the challenging physical layer require specific robustness to
guarantee an efficient usage of the expensive radio resource.
Further exploiting these schemes is an opportunity for a better end
user experience along with a better exploitation of the scarce
resource.
In this context, this memo aims at:
o summing up the current deployment of network coding schemes;
o identifying opportunities for further usage of network coding in
satellite systems.
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites October 2017
1.1. Glossary
The glossary of this memo is related to the network coding taxonomy
document [I-D.irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-taxonomy].
The glossary is extended as follows:
o XX: XX
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].
2. A note on satellite topology
The objective of this section of to provide a generic description of
the components composing a generic satellite system and their
interaction. It provides a high level description of a multi-gateway
satellite network. Figure 1 shows a example of a multigateway
satellite system. It is worth pointing out that some functionnal
blocks aggregate the traffic coming from multiple users, and thus are
opportunity for including network coding.
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites October 2017
+---------------------+
| 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 v v
+------------------+ +------------------+
| terminals | | terminals |
+------------------+ +------------------+
Figure 1: Data plane functions in a generic satellite multi-gateway
system
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
[I-D.irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-taxonomy] 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).
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites October 2017
X1 embodies the source coding that could be used at application level
for video streaming on a broadband access. X2 embodies the physical
layer that is applied on the PLFRAME to have an optimal usage of the
satellite capacity.
+------+-------+---------+---------------+-------+
| | 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 and satellite systems
4. Opportunities for more network coding in satellite systems
This section extends Section 3 by presenting the opportunities for
more network coding in satellite systems.
These opportunities are further detailed in Section 5 and listed in
this section:
o (1) two way relay channel mode;
o (2) reliable multicast;
o (3) improving random access;
o (4) network coding and hybrid access;
We propose to include some of the identified opportunities in the
Figure 3.
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites October 2017
+------+-------+---------+---------------+-------+
| | Upper | Middle | Communication layers |
| | Appl. | ware | |
+ +-------+---------+---------------+-------+
| |Source | Network | Packetization | PHY |
| |coding | AL-FEC | UDP/IP | layer |
+------+-------+---------+---------------+-------+
|E2E |X1 | | (4) | |
|NC | |(1) |(1)(2)(3)(4) | |
|IntraF|X1 | | (2) (4) | |
|InterF| |(1) |(1) (3) |X2 |
|SP |X1 |(1) |(1) (3) |X2 |
|MP | | | (2) | |
+------+-------+---------+---------------+-------+
Figure 3: Opportunites for more network coding and satellite systems
Opportunities for more network coding in SATCOM seems to be more
relevant at the middle ware or at the communication layer levels.
5. Deployability and related use cases
This section details use-cases where the usage of network coding
schemes could improve the overall system and the deployability of the
opportunities that are provided in Section 4.
5.1. Network coding and VNF
Related to the foreseen virtualized network infrastructure, the
network coding schemes could be proposed as VNF and their
deployability enhanced.
5.2. Network coding and PEP
Related to the impact and integration of network coding in Proxy-
Enhanced-Proxy RFC 3135 [RFC3135] architecture. In particular how
network coding can be integrated inside a PEP with QoS scheduler as
defined, for instance, in RFC 5865 [RFC5865].
6. Acknowledgements
7. Contributors
Many thanks to
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites October 2017
8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
9. Security Considerations
This document, by itself, presents no new privacy nor security
issues.
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>.
[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>.
[RFC5865] Baker, F., Polk, J., and M. Dolly, "A Differentiated
Services Code Point (DSCP) for Capacity-Admitted Traffic",
RFC 5865, DOI 10.17487/RFC5865, May 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5865>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-taxonomy]
Adamson, B., Adjih, C., Bilbao, J., Firoiu, V., Fitzek,
F., samah.ghanem@gmail.com, s., Lochin, E., Masucci, A.,
Montpetit, M., Pedersen, M., Peralta, G., Roca, V.,
Saxena, P., and S. Sivakumar, "Network Coding Taxonomy",
draft-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-taxonomy-05 (work in
progress), July 2017.
Authors' Addresses
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites October 2017
Nicolas Kuhn (editor)
CNES
18 Avenue Edouard Belin
Toulouse 31400
France
Phone: 0033561273213
Email: nicolas.kuhn@cnes.fr
Emmanuel Lochin (editor)
ISAE
10 Avenue Edouard Belin
Toulouse 31400
France
Email: emmanuel.lochin@isae.fr
Harald Skinnemoen
AnsuR Technologies
Martin Linges Vei 25
Fornebu 1364
Norway
Email: harald@ansur.no
Samah A. M. Ghanem
Independent Senior Researcher
West Bank
Palestine
Email: samah.ghanem@gmail.com
Josu Bilbao
Ikerlan
Spain
Email: JBilbao@ikerlan.es
Goiuri Peralta
Ikerlan
Spain
Email: gperalta@ikerlan.es
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 8]