Internet Engineering Task Force N. Kuhn, Ed.
Internet-Draft CNES
Intended status: Informational E. Lochin, Ed.
Expires: February 20, 2020 ISAE-SUPAERO
August 19, 2019
Coding techniques for satellite systems
draft-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites-06
Abstract
This document is the product of the Coding for Efficient Network
Communications Research Group (NWCRG). This document follows the
taxonomy document [RFC8406] and considers coding as a linear
combination of packets that operate in and above the network layer.
In this context, this memo details a multi-gateway satellite system
to identify use-cases where coding is relevant. As example, coding
operating in and above the network layer can be exploited to cope
with residual losses or provide reliable multicast services. The
objective is to contribute to a larger deployment of such techniques
in SATCOM systems. This memo also identifies open research issues
related to the deployment of coding in SATCOM systems, such as the
interaction between congestion controls and coding techniques.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 20, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires February 20, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Coding techniques for satellite systems August 2019
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. A note on satellite topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Use-cases for improving the SATCOM system performance with
coding techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Two-way relay channel mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Reliable multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Hybrid access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4. Dealing with LAN losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5. Dealing with varying channel conditions . . . . . . . . . 11
3.6. Improving the gateway handovers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Research challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. On the joint-use of coding techniques and congestion
control in SATCOM systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. On the efficient usage of satellite resource . . . . . . 13
4.3. Interaction with virtualized satellite gateways and
terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4. Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networks . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
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 with link impairments, without
reducing the goodput when the channel quality is good. There is
usually enough redundancy to guarantee a Quasi-Error Free
transmission. The recovery time depends on the encoding block size.
Considering for instance geostationary satellite system (GEO),
physical or link layer erasure coding mechanisms recover transmission
losses within a negligible delay compared to link delay. However,
Kuhn & Lochin Expires February 20, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Coding techniques for satellite systems August 2019
when retransmissions are triggered, this leads to a non-negligible
additional delay in particular over GEO link. Further exploiting
coding techniques at application or transport layers is an
opportunity for releasing constraints on the physical layer and
improving the performance of SATCOM systems.
The notations used in this document are based on the taxonomy
document [RFC8406]:
o Channel and link codings are gathered in the PHY layer coding and
are out of the scope of this document.
o FEC (also called Application-Level FEC) operates in and above the
network layer.
o This document considers coding (or coding techniques or coding
schemes) as a linear combination and not as a content coding
(e.g., to compress a video flow).
Figure 1 presents the status of the reliability schemes deployment in
satellite systems.
o X1 embodies the source coding techniques that could be used at
application level for instance within QUIC. This is not specific
to SATCOM systems since such deployment can be relevant for
broadband Internet access discussions.
o X2 embodies the physical-layer techniques exploited in SATCOM
systems (note that other coding techniques can be exploited).
This is out of the scope of the document.
+------+-------+---------+---------------+-------+
| | Upper | Middle | Communication layers |
| | Appl. | ware | |
+ +-------+---------+---------------+-------+
| |Source | Network | Packetization | PHY |
| |coding | AL-FEC | UDP/IP | layer |
+------+-------+---------+---------------+-------+
|E2E | X1 | | | |
|NC | | | | |
|IntraF| X1 | | | |
|InterF| | | | X2 |
|SPC | X1 | | | X2 |
|MPC | | | | |
+------+-------+---------+---------------+-------+
Figure 1: Reliability schemes in current satellite systems
Kuhn & Lochin Expires February 20, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Coding techniques for satellite systems August 2019
We notice an active research activity on coding techniques and
SATCOM. That being said, not much has actually made it to industrial
developments. In this context, this document aims at identifying
opportunities for further usage of coding in these systems.
The glossary of this memo extends the glossary of the taxonomy
document [RFC8406] as follows:
o ACM : Adaptive Coding and Modulation;
o BBFRAME: Base-Band FRAME - satellite communication layer 2
encapsulation work as follows: (1) each layer 3 packet is
encapsulated with a Generic Stream Encapsulation (GSE) mechanism,
(2) GSE packets are gathered to create BBFRAMEs, (3) BBFRAMEs
contain information related to how they have to be modulated (4)
BBFRAMEs are forwarded to the physical-layer;
o CPE: Customer Premises Equipment;
o COM: COMmunication;
o DSL: Digital Subscriber Line;
o DTN: Delay/Disruption Tolerant Network;
o DVB: Digital Video Broadcasting;
o E2E: End-to-end;
o ETSI: European Telecommunications Standards Institute;
o FEC: Forward Error 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;
Kuhn & Lochin Expires February 20, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Coding techniques for satellite systems August 2019
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 kind of SATellite
COMmunication systems;
o SPC: Single-Path Coding;
o VNF: Virtual Network Function.
This document is the product of and represents the collaborative work
and consensus of the Coding for Efficient Network Communications
Research Group (NWCRG); it is not an IETF product and is not a
standard.
2. A note on satellite topology
This section describes a satellite system that follows the ETSI DVB
standards to provide broadband Internet access. A high-level
description of a multi-gateway satellite 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. 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 2 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 bidirectional Internet access can be found in [SAT2017].
Kuhn & Lochin Expires February 20, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Coding techniques for satellite systems August 2019
Some functional blocks aggregate the traffic of multiple users.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires February 20, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Coding techniques for satellite systems August 2019
+--------------------------+
| application servers |
| (data, coding, multicast |
+--------------------------+
^ ^
| ... |
-----------------------------------
v v v v v v
+------------------+ +------------------+
| network function | | network function |
| (firewall, PEP) | | (firewall, PEP) |
+------------------+ +------------------+
^ ^ ^ ^
| ... | IP packets | ... |
v v v v ---
+------------------+ +------------------+ |
| access gateway | | access gateway | |
+------------------+ +------------------+ |
^ ^ |
| BBFRAME | | gateway
v v |
+------------------+ +------------------+ |
| physical gateway | | physical gateway | |
+------------------+ +------------------+ |
^ ^ ---
| PLFRAME |
v v
+------------------+ +------------------+
| outdoor unit | | outdoor unit |
+------------------+ +------------------+
^ ^
| satellite link |
v v
+------------------+ +------------------+
| sat terminals | | sat terminals |
+------------------+ +------------------+
^ ^ ^ ^
| | | |
v | v |
+----------+ | +----------+ |
| end user | | | end user | |
+----------+ v +----------+ v
+------------------+ +------------------+
| end user | | end user |
+------------------+ +------------------+
Figure 2: Data plane functions in a generic satellite multi-gateway
system
Kuhn & Lochin Expires February 20, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Coding techniques for satellite systems August 2019
3. Use-cases for improving the SATCOM system performance with coding
techniques
This section details use-cases where coding techniques could provide
interesting features for SATCOM systems. Combination of the
presented use-cases could also be relevant.
It is worth noting that these use-cases mostly focus on the
middleware and packetization UDP/IP of Figure 1. There are already
lots of recovery mechanisms at the physical-layer in currently
deployed systems while E2E source coding is 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 2.
3.1. 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 sends a flow A and satellite terminal B sends a
flow B to a coding server. The coding server sends a combination of
both terminal flows. This results in non-negligible capacity savings
and has been demonstrated [ASMS2010]. In the proposed example, a
dedicated coding server is introduced. Its location could be changed
depending on the deployment use-case. With On-Board Processing
satellite payloads, the coding operations could be done at the
satellite level; although this would require lots of computational
ressource on-board and may not be relevant with today's payloads.
-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 3: Network architecture for two way relay channel with NC
Kuhn & Lochin Expires February 20, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Coding techniques for satellite systems August 2019
3.2. Reliable multicast
Using multicast servers is a way to better exploit the satellite
broadcast capabilities. This approach is proposed in the SHINE ESA
project [I-D.vazquez-nfvrg-netcod-function-virtualization] [SHINE].
This use-case considers adding redundancy to a multicast flow
depending on what has been received by different end-users, resulting
in non-negligible scarce resource saving. We propose an illustration
for this scenario in Figure 4.
-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
A multicast flow (M) is forwarded to both satellite terminals A and
B. However packet Ni (resp. Nj) gets lost at terminal A (resp. B),
and terminal A (resp. B) returns a negative acknowledgment Li (resp.
Lj), indicating that the packet is missing. Then either the access
gateway or the multicast server includes a repair packet (rather than
the individual Ni and Nj packets) in the multicast flow to let both
terminals recover from losses.
This could be achieved by using other multicast or broadcast systems,
such as NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) [RFC5740] or File
Delivery over Unidirectional Transport (FLUTE) [RFC6726]. Note that
both NORM and FLUTE are limited to block coding, none of them
supporting sliding window encoding schemes [RFC8406]. Note that
although FLUTE is defined as an unidirectional protocol, the RFC
proposes a bidirectional communication method to enable full
reliability transfer and for security purposes.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires February 20, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Coding techniques for satellite systems August 2019
3.3. Hybrid access
This use-case considers the use of multiple path management with
coding at the transport layer to increase the reliability and/or the
total capacity (using multiple paths 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 techniques could be introduced
both at the CPE and at the concentrator. Apart from packet losses,
other gains could be envisioned, such as a better tolerance to out-
of-order packets which occur when exploited links exhibit high
asymetry in terms of RTT. Depending on the ground architecture
[I-D.chin-nfvrg-cloud-5g-core-structure-yang] [SAT2017], some
equipments might be hosting both SATCOM and cellular functions.
-{}- : bidirectional link
+-----+ +----------------+
+-{}-| SAT |-{}-| BACKBONE |
+------+ +------+ | +-----+ | +------------+ |
| End |-{}-| CPE |-{}-| | |CONCENTRATOR| |
| User | | | | +-----+ | +------------+ | +------------+
+------+ +------+ |-{}-| DSL |-{}-| |-{}-|Application |
| +-----+ | | |Server |
| | | +------------+
| +-----+ | |
+-{}-| LTE |-{}-| |
+-----+ +----------------+
Figure 5: Network architecture for an hybrid access using coding
3.4. Dealing with LAN losses
This use-case considers the usage of coding techniques to cope with
cases where the end user connects to the satellite terminal with a
Wi-Fi link that exhibits losses. In the case of encrypted end-to-end
applications based on UDP, PEP cannot operate. The Wi-Fi losses
result in an end-to-end retransmission that would harm the quality of
experience of the end user.
The architecture is recalled in Figure 6.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires February 20, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Coding techniques for satellite systems August 2019
In this use-case, adding coding techniques could prevent the end-to-
end retransmission from occuring.
-{}- : bidirectional link
-''- : Wi-Fi link
C : where coding techniques could be introduced
+---------+ +---------+ +---+ +--------+ +-------+ +--------+
| | |Satellite| |SAT| |Physical| |Access | |Network |
|End user |-''-|Terminal |-{}-| |-{}-|Gateway |-{}-|Gateway|-{}-|Function|
+---------+ +---------+ +---+ +--------+ +-------+ +--------+
C C C C
Figure 6: Network architecture for dealing with LAN losses
3.5. Dealing with varying channel conditions
This use-case considers the usage of coding techniques to cope with
cases where channel condition can change in less than a second and
where the physical-layer codes could not efficiently guarantee a
Quasi-Error-Free (QEF) transmission.
The architecture is recalled in Figure 7. In these cases, the
mechanisms that are exploited to adapt the physical-layer codes
(Adaptative Coding and Modulation (ACM)) may adapt the modulation and
coding in time: remaining errors could be recovered with higher layer
redundancy packets. Coding may be applied on IP packets or on
layer-2 proprietary format packets.
This use-case is mostly relevant when mobile users are considered or
when the chosen band induces 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 techniques is
different.
-{}- : bidirectional link
C : where coding techniques could be introduced
+---------+ +---+ +--------+ +-------+ +--------+
|Satellite| |SAT| |Physical| |Access | |Network |
|Terminal |-{}-| |-{}-|Gateway |-{}-|Gateway|-{}-|Function|
+---------+ +---+ +--------+ +-------+ +--------+
C C C C
Figure 7: Network architecture for dealing with varying link
characteristics
Kuhn & Lochin Expires February 20, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Coding techniques for satellite systems August 2019
3.6. Improving the gateway handovers
This use-case considers the recovery of packets that may be lost
during gateway handovers. Whether this is for off-loading one given
equipment or because the transmission quality is not the same on each
gateway, changing the transmission gateway may be relevant. However,
if gateways are not properly synchronized or if the algorithm that is
exploited to trigger gateway handovers shows a non negligible
probability of missed detection, this may result in packet losses.
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. A potential control plane is in charge
of taking the decision to change the communication gateway and the
consequent routes.
Figure 8 illustrates this use-case.
-{}- : bidirectional link
! : management interface
C : where 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 8: Network architecture for dealing with gateway handover
schemes
4. Research challenges
This section proposes a few potential approaches to introduce and use
coding techniques in SATCOM systems.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires February 20, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Coding techniques for satellite systems August 2019
4.1. On the joint-use of coding techniques and congestion control 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 contributes to mitigate
congestion in a SATCOM systems. PEP could host coding mechanisms and
thus support use-cases that have been discussed in this document.
Deploying coding schemes at the TCP level in these equipment could be
relevant and independent from the specific characteristics of a
SATCOM link. This leads to research questions on the interaction
between coding schemes and TCP congestion controls.
4.2. On the efficient usage of satellite resource
The recurrent trade-off in SATCOM systems remains: how much overhead
from redundant reliability packets can be introduced to guarantee a
better end-user QoE while optimizing capacity usage ? At which layer
this supplementary coding could be added ?
This problem has been tackled in the past for physical-layer code,
but there remains questions on how to adapt the overhead for, e.g.,
the quickly varying channel conditions use-case.
4.3. Interaction with virtualized satellite gateways and terminals
Related to the foreseen virtualized network infrastructure, coding
techniques could be easily deployed as VNF. Next generation of
SATCOM ground segments could rely on a virtualized environment. This
trend can also be seen in cellular networks, making these discussions
extendable to other deployment scenarios
[I-D.chin-nfvrg-cloud-5g-core-structure-yang]. As one example, the
coding VNF deployment in a virtualized environment is presented in
[I-D.vazquez-nfvrg-netcod-function-virtualization].
A research challenge would be the optimization of the NFV service
function chaining, considering a virtualized infrastructure and other
SATCOM specific functions, to guarantee efficient radio usage and
easy-to-deploy SATCOM services. Moreover, another challenge related
to a virtualized SATCOM equipment is the management of limited
buffered capacities.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires February 20, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Coding techniques for satellite systems August 2019
4.4. Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networks
Communications among deep-space platforms and terrestrial gateways
can be a challenge. Reliable end-to-end (E2E) communications over
such paths must cope with long delay and frequent link disruptions;
indeed, contemporaneous E2E connectivity may be available only
intermittently or never. Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking
[RFC4838] is a solution to enable reliable internetworking space
communications where both standard ad-hoc routing and E2E Internet
protocols cannot be used. Moreover, DTN can also be seen as an
alternative solution to transfer the data between a central PEP and a
remote PEP.
Coding enables E2E reliable communication over DTN with adaptive re-
encoding, as proposed in [THAI15]. In this case, the use-cases
proposed in Section 3.5 would legitimize the usage of coding within
the DTN stack to improve the channel utilization and the E2E
transmission delay. In this context, the use of erasure coding
techniques inside a Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems
(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.
5. Conclusion
This document discuses some opportunities to introduce coding
techniques at a wider scale in satellite telecommunications systems.
Even though this document focuses on satellite systems, it is worth
pointing out that some scenarios proposed may be relevant to other
wireless telecommunication systems. As one example, the generic
architecture proposed in Figure 2 may be mapped to cellular networks
as follows: the 'network function' block gathers some of the
functions of the Evolved Packet Core subsystem, while the 'access
gateway' and 'physical gateway' blocks gather the same type of
functions as the Universal Mobile Terrestrial Radio Access Network.
This mapping extends the opportunities identified in this draft since
they may be also relevant for cellular networks.
6. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to John Border, Stuart Card, Tomaso de Cola, Vincent
Roca, Lloyd Wood and Marie-Jose Montpetit for their help in writing
this document.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires February 20, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Coding techniques for satellite systems August 2019
7. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
8. 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.
9. Informative References
[ASMS2010]
De Cola, T. and et. al., "Demonstration at opening session
of ASMS 2010", ASMS , 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.ietf-tcpm-converters]
Bonaventure, O., Boucadair, M., Gundavelli, S., Seo, S.,
and B. Hesmans, "0-RTT TCP Convert Protocol", draft-ietf-
tcpm-converters-10 (work in progress), August 2019.
[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 February 20, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Coding techniques for satellite systems August 2019
[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>.
[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.
Kuhn & Lochin Expires February 20, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Coding techniques for satellite systems August 2019
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 February 20, 2020 [Page 17]