Internet Engineering Task Force N. Kuhn, Ed.
Internet-Draft CNES
Intended status: Informational E. Lochin, Ed.
Expires: June 14, 2019 ISAE-SUPAERO
Dec 11, 2018
Network coding and satellites
draft-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites-03
Abstract
This memo details a multi-gateway satellite system to identify
multiple opportunities on how coding techniques could be deployed at
a wider scale.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 14, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires June 14, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Dec 2018
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. A note on satellite topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Actual deployment of reliability schemes in 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
5. Research challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Towards an increased deployability in SATCOM systems . . 10
5.2. Interaction with virtualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networks . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
Guaranteeing both physical layer robustness and efficient usage of
the radio resource has been in the core design of SATellite
COMmunication (SATCOM) systems. The trade-off often resided in how
much redundancy a system adds to cope from link impairments, without
reducing the good-put when the channel quality is high. There is
usually enough redundancy to guarantee a Quasi-Error Free
transmission. However, physical layer reliability mechanisms may not
recover transmission losses (e.g. with a mobile user) and layer 2 (or
above) re-transmissions induce 500 ms one-way delay with a
geostationary satellite. Further exploiting coding schemes at higher
OSI-layers is an opportunity for releasing constraints on the
physical layer in such cases and improving the performance of SATCOM
systems.
We have noticed an active research activity on coding and SATCOM in
the past. That being said, not much has actually made it to
industrial developments. In this context, this document aims at
identifying opportunities for further usage of coding in these
systems.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires June 14, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Dec 2018
This document follows the taxonomy of coding techniques for efficient
network communications [RFC8406].
1.1. Glossary
The glossary of this memo extends the glossary of the taxonomy
document [RFC8406] as follows:
o ACM : Adaptative Coding and Modulation;
o BBFRAME: Base-Band FRAME - satellite communication layer 2
encapsulation work as follows: (1) each layer 3 packet is
encapsulated with a Generic Stream Encapsulation (GSE) mechanism,
(2) GSE packets are gathered to create BBFRAMEs, (3) BBFRAMEs
contain information related to how they have to be modulated (4)
BBFRAMEs are forwarded to the physical layer;
o CPE: Customer Premise Equipment;
o DTN: Delay/Disruption Tolerant Network;
o DSL: Digital Subscriber Line;
o LTE: Long Term Evolution;
o SAT: SATellite;
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.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires June 14, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Dec 2018
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
This section focuses on a generic description of the components
composing a generic satellite system and their interaction. A high
level description of a multi-gateway satellites network is provided.
There are 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 broadband 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 reliability
requirements lead to multiple gateways for one unique satellite
platform.
In this context, Figure 1 shows an example of a multi-gateway
satellite system. 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 discussions and a generic SATCOM ground segment architecture
for a bi-directional Internet access can be found in [SAT2017].
Some functional blocks aggregate the traffic of multiple users.
Coding schemes could be applied on both single and aggregated
traffic.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires June 14, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Dec 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 v v
+------------------+ +------------------+
| end user | | end user |
+------------------+ +------------------+
Figure 1: Data plane functions in a generic satellite multi-gateway
system
Kuhn & Lochin Expires June 14, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Dec 2018
3. Actual deployment of reliability schemes in satellite systems
Figure 2 presents the status of the reliability schemes deployment in
satellite systems. The information is based on the taxonomy document
[RFC8406] and the notations are the following: End-to-End Coding
(E2E), Network Coding (NC), Intra-Flow Coding (IntraF), Inter-Flow
Coding (InterF), Single-Path Coding (SP) and Multi-Path Coding (MP).
X1 embodies the source coding that could be used at application level
for instance within QUIC or other video streaming applications. This
is not specific to SATCOM systems since such deployment can be
relevant for broadband Internet access discussions.
X2 embodies the physical layer, applied to the PLFRAME, to optimize
the satellite capacity usage. At the physical layer, FEC mechanisms
can be exploited. This aspect is not in the scope of the WG
according to the taxonomoy document [RFC8406].
+------+-------+---------+---------------+-------+
| | Upper | Middle | Communication layers |
| | Appl. | ware | |
+ +-------+---------+---------------+-------+
| |Source | Network | Packetization | PHY |
| |coding | AL-FEC | UDP/IP | layer |
+------+-------+---------+---------------+-------+
|E2E | X1 | | | |
|NC | | | | |
|IntraF| X1 | | | |
|InterF| | | | X2 |
|SP | X1 | | | X2 |
|MP | | | | |
+------+-------+---------+---------------+-------+
Figure 2: Reliability schemes in current satellite systems
Reliability is an inherent part of the physical layer and usually
achieved by using coding techniques. Based on public information,
coding does not seem to be widely used at higher layers.
4. Details on the use cases
This section details use-cases where coding schemes could improve the
overall performance of a SATCOM system (e.g. considering a more
efficient usage of the satellite resource, delivery delay, delivery
ratio).
It is worth noting that these use-cases mostly focus on the
middleware and packetization UDP/IP of Figure 2. There are already
Kuhn & Lochin Expires June 14, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Dec 2018
lots of recovery mechanisms at the physical layer in currently
deployed systems while E2E source coding are done at the application
level. In a multi-gateway SATCOM Internet access, the deployment
opportunities are more relevant in specific SATCOM components such as
the "network function" block or the "access gateway" of Figure 1.
4.1. Two-way relay channel mode
This use-case considers a two-way communication between end users,
through a satellite link. Figure 3 proposes an illustration of this
scenario.
Satellite terminal A (resp. B) transmits a flow A (resp. B) to a NC
server, which forwards a combination of both terminal flows. This
results in non-negligible capacity savings and has been demonstrated
[ASMS2010]. Moreover, with On-Board Processing satellite payloads,
the coding operations could be done at the satellite level, thus
reducing the end-to-end delay of the communication.
-X}- : traffic from satellite terminal X to the server
={X+Y= : traffic from X and Y combined transmitted from
the server to terminals X and Y
+-----------+ +-----+
|Sat term A |--A}-+ | |
+-----------+ | | | +---------+ +------+
^^ +--| |--A}--| |--A}--| |
|| | SAT |--B}--| Gateway |--B}--|Server|
===={A+B=========| |={A+B=| |={A+B=| |
|| | | +---------+ +------+
vv +--| |
+-----------+ | | |
|Sat term B |--B}-+ | |
+-----------+ +-----+
Figure 3: Network architecture for two way relay channel with NC
4.2. Reliable multicast
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
in non-negligible scarce resource saving. We propose an illustration
for this scenario in Figure 4.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires June 14, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Dec 2018
A multicast flow (M) is forwarded to both satellite terminals A and
B. However packet Ni (resp. Nj) get lost at terminal A (resp. B),
and terminal A (resp. B) returns a negative acknowledgement Li
(resp. Lj), indicating that the packet is missing. Then either the
access gateway or the multicast server includes a repair packet
(rather than the individual Ni and Nj packets) in the multicast flow
to let both terminals recover from losses. This could be achieved by
using NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) [RFC5740] in situations
where a feedback link is available, or FLUTE/ALC [RFC6726] otherwise.
Note that both NORM and FLUTE/ALC are limited to block coding, none
of them supporting sliding window encoding schemes [RFC8406].
-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 4: Network architecture for a reliable multicast with NC
4.3. Hybrid access
This use-case considers the use of multiple path management with
coding at the transport level to increase the reliability and/or the
total capacity (using multiple path does not guarantee an improvement
of both the reliability and the total capacity). 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]. This kind of architecture is also
discussed in the TCPM working group [I-D.ietf-tcpm-converters].
To cope with packet loss (due to either end-user mobility or physical
layer impairments), coding could be introduced in both the CPE and at
the concentrator.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires June 14, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Dec 2018
-{}- : bidirectional link
+-----+ +----------------+
+-{}-| SAT |-{}-| BACKBONE |
+------+ +------+ | +-----+ | +------------+ |
| End |-{}-| CPE |-{}-| | |CONCENTRATOR| |
| User | | | | +-----+ | +------------+ | +------+
+------+ +------+ |-{}-| DSL |-{}-| |-{}-|Data |
| +-----+ | | |Server|
| | | +------+
| +-----+ | |
+-{}-| LTE |-{}-| |
+-----+ +----------------+
Figure 5: Network architecture for an hybrid access using NC
4.4. Dealing with varying capacity
This use-case considers the usage of coding to cope with cases where
channel condition can change in less than a second and where the
physical layer codes could not guarantee a QEF transmission.
The architecture is recalled in Figure 6. In these cases, Adaptative
Coding and Modulation (ACM) may not adapt the modulation and coding
accordingly and remaining errors could be recovered with higher
layers redundancy packets. The coding schemes could be applied at
the access gateway or the network function block levels to increase
the reliability of the transmission. Coding may be applied on IP
packets or on layer-2 proprietary format packets.
This use-case is mostly relevant for when mobile users are considered
or when the chosen band induce a required physical layer coding that
may change over time (Q/V bands, Ka band, etc.). Depending on the
use-case (e.g. very high frequency bands, mobile users) or depending
on the deployment use-cases (e.g. performance of the network between
each individual block), the relevance of adding coding is different.
-{}- : 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 June 14, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Dec 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, coding can be added to improve
the reliability of the transmission and allow a seamless gateway
handover. Coding could be applied at either the access gateway or
the network function block. The control plane manager is in charge
of taking the decision to change the communication gateway and the
consequent routes.
Figure 7 illustrates this use-case. 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
5. Research challenges
5.1. Towards an increased deployability in SATCOM systems
SATCOM systems typically feature Performance Enhancement Proxy (PEP)
RFC 3135 [RFC3135]. 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. PEP could host coding mechanisms
Kuhn & Lochin Expires June 14, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Dec 2018
and thus support the use-cases that have been discussed in this
document.
Deploying coding schemes at the TCP level in these equipments could
be relevant and independent from the specificities of a SATCOM link.
However, there is a research issue in the recurrent trade-off in
SATCOM systems: how much reliability packets can be introduced to
guarantee a better end-user QoE while optimizing capacity usage ?
5.2. Interaction with virtualization
Related to the foreseen virtualized network infrastructure, coding
schemes could be easily deployed as Virtual Network Function (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
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 usage and
easy-to-deploy SATCOM services.
5.3. Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networks
In the context of the deep-space communications, establishing
communications from terrestrial gateways to satellite platforms can
be a challenge. Reliable end-to-end (E2E) communications over such
links must cope with long delay and frequent link disruptions.
Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking [RFC4838] is a solution to
enable reliable internetworking space communications where both
standard ad-hoc routing and E2E Internet protocols cannot be used.
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 4.4 would legitimate 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
inside a Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS)
architecture has been specified in [CCSDS-131.5-O-1]. A research
challenge would be on how such coding can be integrated in the IETF
DTN stack.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires June 14, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Dec 2018
6. Conclusion
This document presents the current deployment of coding in some
satellite telecommunications systems along with a discussion on the
multiple opportunities to introduce these techniques at a wider
scale.
Even if this document focuses on satellite systems, it is worth
pointing out that the some scenarios proposed may be relevant to
other wireless telecommunication systems. As one example, the
generic architecture proposed in Figure 1 may be mapped to cellular
networks as follows: the 'network function' block gather some of the
functions of the Evolved Packet Core subsystem, while the 'access
gateway' and 'physical gateway' blocks gather the same type of
functions as the Universal Mobile Terrestrial Radio Access Network.
This mapping extends the opportunities identified in this draft since
they may be also relevant for cellular networks.
7. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Tomaso de Cola, Vincent Roca, Lloyd Wood and Marie-
Jose Montpetit for their help in writting this document.
8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
9. Security Considerations
Security considerations are inherent to any access network. SATCOM
systems introduce standard security mechanisms. In particular, there
are some specificities related to the fact that all users under the
coverage can record all the packets that are being transmitted, such
as in LTE networks. On the specific scenario of NC in SATCOM
systems, there are no specific security considerations.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires June 14, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Dec 2018
10.2. Informative References
[ASMS2010]
De Cola, T. and et. al., "Demonstration at opening session
of ASMS 2010", ASMS , 2010.
[CCSDS-131.5-O-1]
CCSDS, "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.ietf-tcpm-converters]
Bonaventure, O., Boucadair, M., Gundavelli, S., and S.
Seo, "0-RTT TCP Convert Protocol", draft-ietf-tcpm-
converters-04 (work in progress), October 2018.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires June 14, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Dec 2018
[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", Int.
J. Satell. Commun. Network. vol. 36, 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 , June 2015.
Authors' Addresses
Nicolas Kuhn (editor)
CNES
18 Avenue Edouard Belin
Toulouse 31400
France
Email: nicolas.kuhn@cnes.fr
Kuhn & Lochin Expires June 14, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Network coding and satellites Dec 2018
Emmanuel Lochin (editor)
ISAE-SUPAERO
10 Avenue Edouard Belin
Toulouse 31400
France
Email: emmanuel.lochin@isae-supaero.fr
Kuhn & Lochin Expires June 14, 2019 [Page 15]