RFC 8975
Network Coding for Satellite Systems
Network Coding for Satellite Systems 🛰️💖
okay bestie, this RFC is a whole vibe 🌸 It's an Informational doc (so not a standard, just vibes and research notes 🧚) from the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), written by N. Kuhn (CNES) and E. Lochin (ENAC) as editors. It was published in January 2021 as RFC 8975 and is part of the Coding for Efficient Network Communications Research Group (NWCRG) work. It doesn't obsolete or update any other RFCs, and it's not an IETF product, just the research group's consensus. 🎀 Its ISSN is 2070-1721, if you're collecting those 🦋
Abstract ✨
This doc is part of the NWCRG's work and follows their taxonomy in RFC 8406 💅 The big goal is to help Network Coding techniques get deployed in and above the network layer in satellite communication systems 🛰️ It also flags open research questions about making that happen 🔥
Status of This Memo 🌈
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification, it's just here for information 💜 It's a product of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), which shares research and development results about the Internet. These results might not be ready for deployment, so be careful 🙈 It reflects the consensus of the NWCRG within the IRTF. Anything the IRSG approves for publication is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard, see Section 2 of RFC 7841 💅
For the current status, errata, and how to send feedback, check https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8975 🦋
Copyright Notice 💜
Copyright (c) 2021 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) as they were on the publication date. Please read them carefully, because they explain your rights and restrictions for this document 🫶
Table of Contents 🍓
1. Introduction
2. A Note on the Topology of Satellite Networks
3. Use Cases for Improving SATCOM System Performance Using Network
Coding
3.1. Two-Way Relay Channel Mode
3.2. Reliable Multicast
3.3. Hybrid Access
3.4. LAN Packet Losses
3.5. Varying Channel Conditions
3.6. Improving Gateway Handover
4. Research Challenges
4.1. Joint Use of Network Coding and Congestion Control in
SATCOM Systems
4.2. Efficient Use of Satellite Resources
4.3. Interaction with Virtualized Satellite Gateways and
Terminals
4.4. Delay/Disruption-Tolerant Networking (DTN)
5. Conclusion
6. Glossary
7. IANA Considerations
8. Security Considerations
9. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses1. Introduction 🧚
Okay so this doc is the collaborative work and consensus of the NWCRG. It's not an IETF product and it's not a standard, but it's meant to bring the SATellite COMmunication (SATCOM) and Internet research crowds up to speed on new Network Coding developments 📡 Section 6 has a glossary so the terms make sense 💅
Here's the tea 🫖 Putting Network Coding above the network layer, at the application or transport layers (see [RFC1122]), can seriously level up end-to-end performance for SATCOM systems 😭 Link and physical layer coding already does a lot to make transmission nearly error-free, so packet loss is minimal. But when leftover errors at those layers do cause losses, retransmissions take forever, especially on geostationary systems where the round-trip delay is over 0.7 seconds 💀 So using Network Coding up top can improve service quality in SATCOM subnetworks and make end users happier 🥰
There's a lot of active research on Network Coding above the network layer, especially for SATCOM, but very little of it has made it into commercial systems yet 🙈 So this doc points out where commercial SATCOM networks could use Network Coding more 🌟
The notation here follows the NWCRG taxonomy [RFC8406] 🎀
- Channel and link error-correcting codes count as PHYsical (PHY) layer error protection and are out of scope for this doc 🙅♀️
- Forward Erasure Correction (FEC) (also called "Application-Level FEC") runs above the link layer and aims at recovering lost packets 🦋
- This doc only considers coding that uses a linear combination of packets. So things like content coding (for example, compressing a video flow) or other non-linear operations are not included 💅
2. A Note on the Topology of Satellite Networks 🛰️
There are lots of SATCOM systems, like broadcast TV, point-to-point communication, and Internet of Things (IoT) monitoring 🌈 So the ground segment setup changes depending on what the system is for 🧚 This section focuses on a satellite system that follows the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) standards to deliver broadband Internet access through ground-based gateways [ETSI-EN-2020] 💜 Keep in mind that one satellite can often carry more data than a single gateway can handle, so there are usually several gateways per satellite platform 🔥
Here's Figure 1, a multigateway satellite system, where BBFRAME means "Base-Band FRAME", PLFRAME means "Physical Layer FRAME", and PEP means "Performance Enhancing Proxy". For more on a generic SATCOM ground segment for two-way Internet access, check [SAT2017] or the DVB docs 🎀
+--------------------------+
| application servers |
| (data, coding, multicast)|
+--------------------------+
| ... |
-----------------------------------
| | | | | |
+---------------------+ +---------------------+
| network function | | network function |
|(firewall, PEP, etc.)| |(firewall, PEP, etc.)|
+---------------------+ +---------------------+
| ... | IP packets | ... |
---
+------------------+ +------------------+ |
| access gateway | | access gateway | |
+------------------+ +------------------+ |
| BBFRAME | | gateway
+------------------+ +------------------+ |
| physical gateway | | physical gateway | |
+------------------+ +------------------+ |
---
| PLFRAME |
+------------------+ +------------------+
| outdoor unit | | outdoor unit |
+------------------+ +------------------+
| satellite link |
+------------------+ +------------------+
| outdoor unit | | outdoor unit |
+------------------+ +------------------+
| |
+------------------+ +------------------+
| sat terminals | | sat terminals |
+------------------+ +------------------+
| | | |
+----------+ | +----------+ |
|end user 1| | |end user 3| |
+----------+ | +----------+ |
+----------+ +----------+
|end user 2| |end user 4|
+----------+ +----------+
Figure 1: Data-Plane Functions in a Generic Satellite
Multigateway System3. Use Cases for Improving SATCOM System Performance Using Network Coding 🍓
This section walks through use cases where Network Coding could boost SATCOM system performance 🚀
3.1. Two-Way Relay Channel Mode 🦋
This use case is about two-way communication between end users over a satellite link, as shown in Figure 2 💖
Satellite terminal A sends packet flow A, and satellite terminal B sends packet flow B, to a coding server 🧚 The coding server then sends a combination of both flows instead of each flow on its own. This saves a non-negligible amount of capacity, which was shown in the past [ASMS2010] ✨ In the example there's a dedicated coding server, but it could live somewhere else depending on the deployment 🌸 Network Coding could also happen at the satellite level, though that would need a lot of onboard computing power and might not be supported by today's satellites 🛰️
-X}- : traffic from satellite terminal X to the server
={X+Y= : traffic from X and Y combined sent from
the server to terminals X and Y
+-----------+ +-----+
|Sat term A |--A}-+ | |
+-----------+ | | | +---------+ +------+
^^ +--| |--A}--| |--A}--|Coding|
|| | SAT |--B}--| Gateway |--B}--|Server|
===={A+B=========| |={A+B=| |={A+B=| |
|| | | +---------+ +------+
vv +--| |
+-----------+ | | |
|Sat term B |--B}-+ | |
+-----------+ +-----+
Figure 2: Network Architecture for Two-Way Relay Channel Using
Network CodingThat's the end of part 1 bestie, more parts are coming 💜 Stay tuned for Section 3.2 and beyond! 🎀
3.2. Reliable Multicast 📡
okay so multicast servers are one way to actually make good use of satellite broadcast capabilities 🛰️✨ bestie this is giving efficiency. The European Space Agency's (ESA) Secure Hybrid In Network caching Environment (SHINE) project proposes satellite-based multicast [NETCOD-FUNCTION-VIRT] [SHINE]. The idea is to add redundancy to a multicast flow based on what each end user has actually received, which saves a non-negligible amount of the scarce SATCOM resources 💅. Figure 3 shows the setup.
-Li}- : packet indicating the loss of packet i of a multicast flow M
={M== : multicast flow including the missing packets
+-----------+ +-----+
|Terminal A |-Li}-+ | |
+-----------+ | | | +---------+ +------+
^^ +-| |-Li}--| | |Multi |
|| | SAT |-Lj}--| Gateway |--|Cast |
====={M=========| |={M===| | |Server|
|| | | +---------+ +------+
vv +-| |
+-----------+ | | |
|Terminal B |-Lj}-+ | |
+-----------+ +-----+
Figure 3: Network Architecture for a Reliable Multicast Using
Network Codingso here's the vibe 🎀. A multicast flow (M) goes out to both satellite terminals, A and B. M is made of packets Nk, which aren't drawn in Figure 3. Packet Ni gets lost at terminal A, and packet Nj gets lost at terminal B. When that happens, A sends back a negative acknowledgment Li saying "hey, I'm missing Ni," and B sends back Lj for Nj 🙈. Then, using coding, either the access gateway or the multicast server can slip a repair packet into the multicast flow, instead of sending Ni and Nj on their own. That one repair packet lets both terminals recover from their losses 🫶.
Other multicast or broadcast systems could do this job too, like NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) [RFC5740] or File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport (FLUTE) [RFC6726]. The tea is that both NORM and FLUTE are limited to block coding. Neither one supports the more flexible sliding window encoding schemes, which let you decode before you've received the whole block. That early decoding is an added delay benefit, and it's a big deal 😭 [RFC8406] [RFC8681].
3.3. Hybrid Access 🦋
this one is about improving multiple-path communications using Network Coding at the transport layer 🌈 (see Figure 4, where DSL stands for "Digital Subscriber Line", LTE for "Long Term Evolution", and SAT for "SATellite"). It's inspired by the Broadband Access via Integrated Terrestrial Satellite Systems (BATS) project, and it was published as an ETSI Technical Report [ETSI-TR-2017]. Iconic work honestly 👑.
Packet loss is the enemy here, and it can come from end-user mobility or from physical-layer residual errors 💀. That's where Network Coding comes in. Depending on the protocol, Network Coding could be applied at the Customer Premises Equipment (CPE), at the concentrator, or at both. Beyond coping with packet loss, it also helps with out-of-order packet delivery, which happens when the links being used have a high asymmetry in terms of Round-Trip Time (RTT). Depending on the ground architecture [5G-CORE-YANG] [SAT2017], some ground equipment might be hosting both SATCOM and cellular network functionality, which is a whole mood ✨.
-{}- : bidirectional link
+---+ +--------------+
+-{}-|SAT|-{}-|BACKBONE |
+----+ +---+ | +---+ |+------------+|
|End |-{}-|CPE|-{}-| ||CONCENTRATOR||
|User| +---+ | +---+ |+------------+| +-----------+
+----+ |-{}-|DSL|-{}-| |-{}-|Application|
| +---+ | | |Server |
| | | +-----------+
| +---+ | |
+-{}-|LTE|-{}-+--------------+
+---+ Figure 4: Network Architecture for Hybrid Access Using Network Coding3.4. LAN Packet Losses 📶
this use case is for when a lossy WiFi link connects you to the SATCOM network 🙃. Here's the tea: when encrypted end-to-end applications based on UDP are in use, a Performance Enhancing Proxy (PEP) can't operate, so other mechanisms need to step in 🔐. Those WiFi packet losses trigger an end-to-end retransmission, which tanks the end user's experience and wastes SATCOM bottleneck resources on traffic that doesn't generate revenue 😤. So adding Network Coding techniques stops that end-to-end retransmission from happening, since the packet losses would probably be recovered. Main character energy 👑.
The architecture is shown in Figure 5.
-{}- : bidirectional link
-''- : WiFi link
C : where Network Coding techniques could be introduced
+----+ +--------+ +---+ +-------+ +-------+ +--------+
|End | |Sat. | |SAT| |Phy | |Access | |Network |
|user|-''-|Terminal|-{}-| |-{}-|Gateway|-{}-|Gateway|-{}-|Function|
+----+ +--------+ +---+ +-------+ +-------+ +--------+
C C C C Figure 5: Network Architecture for Dealing with LAN Losses3.5. Varying Channel Conditions 🌦️
this one covers using Network Coding to cope with subsecond physical channel condition changes 🌪️. The physical-layer mechanisms (Adaptive Coding and Modulation (ACM)) may not adapt the modulation and error-correction coding in time, so the residual errors turn into higher-layer packet losses. Those losses can be recovered with Network Coding 🫧. This is mostly relevant when mobile users are considered, or when the satellite frequency band introduces quick changes in channel condition, like Q/V bands, Ka band, etc. Depending on the use case (for example, bands with very high frequency or mobile users), the relevance of adding Network Coding is different, so it's not one-size-fits-all 💅.
The system architecture is shown in Figure 6.
-{}- : bidirectional link
C : where Network Coding techniques could be introduced
+---------+ +---+ +--------+ +-------+ +--------+
|Satellite| |SAT| |Physical| |Access | |Network |
|Terminal |-{}-| |-{}-|Gateway |-{}-|Gateway|-{}-|Function|
+---------+ +---+ +--------+ +-------+ +--------+
C C C C Figure 6: Network Architecture for Dealing with Varying Link
Characteristics3.6. Improving Gateway Handover 🚪
this use case is about recovering packets that might get lost during gateway handover 🌙. Switching the transmission gateway can be beneficial, whether it's for offloading a given piece of equipment or because transmission quality differs from gateway to gateway. But packet losses can happen if the gateways aren't properly synchronized, or if the algorithm that triggers gateway handover isn't properly tuned 😬. During these critical phases, Network Coding can be added to improve reliability and allow a seamless gateway handover ✨.
Figure 7 illustrates this use case.
-{}- : bidirectional link
! : management interface
C : where Network Coding techniques could be introduced
C C
+--------+ +-------+ +--------+
|Physical| |Access | |Network |
+-{}-|gateway |-{}-|gateway|-{}-|function|
| +--------+ +-------+ +--------+
| ! !
+---------+ +---+ +---------------+
|Satellite| |SAT| | Control-plane |
|Terminal |-{}-| | | manager |
+---------+ +---+ +---------------+
| ! !
| +--------+ +-------+ +--------+
+-{}-|Physical|-{}-|Access |-{}-|Network |
|gateway | |gateway| |function|
+--------+ +-------+ +--------+
C C Figure 7: Network Architecture for Dealing with Gateway Handover4. Research Challenges 🧠
okay bestie, this section is where the brainy stuff lives 🤓. It proposes a few potential approaches to introducing and using Network Coding in SATCOM systems 💜.
4.1. Joint Use of Network Coding and Congestion Control in SATCOM Systems 💞
lots of SATCOM systems use Performance Enhancing Proxy (PEP) [RFC3135] 🛰️. PEPs usually split end-to-end connections and forward transport or application-layer packets to the satellite baseband gateway. They help mitigate congestion in a SATCOM system by limiting the impact of long delays on Internet protocols 🌸. A PEP mechanism could also include Network Coding operation, and so it could support the use cases discussed in Section 3 of this document.
Deploying Network Coding in the PEP could be relevant and independent from the specifics of a SATCOM link 🧚. That said, it leads to research questions about the potential interaction between Network Coding and congestion control. This is discussed in [NWCRG-CODING] 📚.
4.2. Efficient Use of Satellite Resources 🛰️
there's a recurring trade-off in SATCOM systems, and it's kind of a big deal 😩. How much overhead from redundant reliability packets can you add to guarantee a better end-user Quality of Experience (QoE) while still optimizing capacity usage? And at which layer should this supplementary redundancy be added?
This problem has been tackled before by deploying physical-layer error-correction codes. Questions still remain, though, about adapting the coding overhead and added delay for things like quickly varying channel conditions, where ACM may not be reacting quickly enough, as discussed in Section 3.5 🌊. A higher layer with Network Coding doesn't react more quickly than the physical layer. But it may operate over a packet-based time window that is larger than the physical one ⏳.
4.3. Interaction with Virtualized Satellite Gateways and Terminals 🌐
in the emerging virtualized network infrastructure, Network Coding could be easily deployed as Virtual Network Functions (VNFs) 🎀. The next generation of SATCOM ground segments will rely on a virtualized environment to integrate with terrestrial networks. This trend toward Network Function Virtualization (NFV) is also central to 5G and next-generation cellular networks, which makes this research applicable to other deployment scenarios [5G-CORE-YANG]. As one example, Network Coding VNF deployment in a virtualized environment has been presented in [NETCOD-FUNCTION-VIRT] 💖.
A research challenge would be optimizing NFV service function chaining, considering a virtualized infrastructure and other SATCOM-specific functions. The goal is to guarantee efficient radio-link usage and provide easy-to-deploy SATCOM services 🧁. Another challenge related to virtualized SATCOM equipment is managing limited buffered capacities in large gateways 🫶.
4.4. Delay/Disruption-Tolerant Networking (DTN) 🛰️✨
okay bestie, talking to deep-space platforms and earth gateways is SO hard 😭🌌 the delays are massive and the links keep dropping, so reliable end-to-end (E2E) comms over these paths have to survive super long delays and frequent disruptions. ngl E2E connectivity might only show up now and then, or not at all 💀
Delay/Disruption-Tolerant Networking (DTN) [RFC4838] is the solution that makes reliable internetworking for space communications actually work when neither standard ad hoc routing nor the usual E2E Internet protocols can be used 🚀💖 it's giving main character energy. DTN can also be seen as an alternative way to move data between a central PEP and a remote PEP 🧚
Network Coding can enable E2E reliable communications over a DTN, with potential adaptive re-encoding, as proposed in [THAI15] 🦋 Here's the fun part: the use case proposed in Section 3.5 would encourage using Network Coding inside the DTN stack to improve utilization of the physical channel and minimize the effects of the E2E transmission delays 🔥 The use of packet erasure coding techniques inside a Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) architecture has been specified in [CCSDS-131.5-O-1] 🎀 and the one research challenge that's still open is how this Network Coding can be integrated in the IETF DTN stack 👀 bestie we need to figure this out 😭
5. Conclusion 🌸
okay so this document introduces some wide-scale Network Coding technique opportunities in satellite telecommunications systems 💅
even though this document focuses on satellite systems, some of the scenarios proposed here may be relevant to other wireless telecommunication systems too 🌈 for example, the generic architecture proposed in Figure 1 can be mapped onto cellular networks like this: 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 document, since they may also be relevant for cellular networks, which is honestly iconic ✨
6. Glossary 📖
the glossary of this memo extends the definitions of the taxonomy document [RFC8406] as follows 💜
ACM: Adaptive Coding and Modulation
BBFRAME: Base-Band FRAME -- satellite communication Layer 2
encapsulation works 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, and (4) BBFRAMEs are forwarded
to the physical layer.
COM: COMmunication
CPE: Customer Premises Equipment
DSL: Digital Subscriber Line
DTN: Delay/Disruption-Tolerant Networking
DVB: Digital Video Broadcasting
E2E: End-to-End
ETSI: European Telecommunications Standards Institute
FEC: Forward Erasure Correction
FLUTE: File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport [RFC6726]
IntraF: Intra-Flow Coding
InterF: Inter-Flow Coding
IoT: Internet of Things
LTE: Long Term Evolution
MPC: Multi-Path Coding
NC: Network Coding
NFV: Network Function Virtualization -- concept of running
software-defined network functions
NORM: NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast [RFC5740]
PEP: Performance Enhancing Proxy [RFC3135] -- a typical PEP
for satellite communications includes compression,
caching, TCP ACK spoofing, and specific congestion-
control tuning.
PLFRAME: Physical Layer FRAME -- modulated version of a BBFRAME
with additional information (e.g., related to
synchronization)
QEF: Quasi-Error-Free
QoE: Quality of Experience
QoS: Quality of Service
RTT: Round-Trip Time
SAT: SATellite
SATCOM: Generic term related to all kinds of SATellite-
COMmunication systems
SPC: Single-Path Coding
VNF: Virtual Network Function -- implementation of a network
function using software.7. IANA Considerations 🎀
no IANA actions in this doc, so nothing to register this time 💖
8. Security Considerations 🔐
okay this part is SERIOUS bestie 😭 security considerations are inherent to any access network, and that especially goes for SATCOM systems 🛰️ just like with cellular networks, over-the-air data can be encrypted using, e.g., the algorithms in [ETSI-TS-2011] 🔒 but because the operator may not enable this [SSP-2020], the applications should apply cryptographic protection themselves 🚨
the use of FEC or Network Coding in SATCOM also comes with risks 💀 for example, a single corrupted redundant packet may propagate to several flows when they are protected together in an interflow coding approach (see Section 3). this document doesn't go deeper into this, but the security considerations discussed in [RFC6363] still apply 🫶 stay safe out there, fr fr ✨
9. Informative References 📚
[5G-CORE-YANG]
Chen, C. and A. Pan, "Yang Data Model for Cloud Native 5G
Core structure", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
chin-nfvrg-cloud-5g-core-structure-yang-00, 28 December
2017, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chin-nfvrg-cloud-
5g-core-structure-yang-00>.
[ASMS2010] "Demonstration at opening session of ASMS 2010", 5th
Advanced Satellite Multimedia Systems (ASMS) Conference,
2010.
[CCSDS-131.5-O-1]
The Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems,
"Erasure Correcting Codes for Use in Near-Earth and Deep-
Space Communications", Experimental Specification
CCSDS 131.5-0-1, November 2014.
[ETSI-EN-2020]
ETSI, "Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Second Generation
DVB Interactive Satellite System (DVB-RCS2); Part 2: Lower
Layers for Satellite standard", ETSI EN 301 545-2 V1.3.1,
July 2020.
[ETSI-TR-2017]
ETSI, "Satellite Earth Stations and Systems (SES); Multi-
link routing scheme in hybrid access network with
heterogeneous links", ETSI TR 103 351 V1.1.1, July 2017.
[ETSI-TS-2011]
ETSI, "Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Content
Protection and Copy Management (DVB-CPCM); Part 5: CPCM
Security Toolbox", ETSI TS 102 825-5 V1.2.1, February
2011.
[NETCOD-FUNCTION-VIRT]
Vazquez-Castro, M., Do-Duy, T., Romano, S. P., and A. M.
Tulino, "Network Coding Function Virtualization", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-vazquez-nfvrg-netcod-
function-virtualization-02, 16 November 2017,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vazquez-nfvrg-netcod-
function-virtualization-02>.
[NWCRG-CODING]
Kuhn, N., Lochin, E., Michel, F., and M. Welzl, "Coding
and congestion control in transport", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-irtf-nwcrg-coding-and-congestion-04,
30 October 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-
nwcrg-coding-and-congestion-04>.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC3135] Border, J., Kojo, M., Griner, J., Montenegro, G., and Z.
Shelby, "Performance Enhancing Proxies Intended to
Mitigate Link-Related Degradations", RFC 3135,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3135, June 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3135>.
[RFC4838] Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst,
R., Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant
Networking Architecture", RFC 4838, DOI 10.17487/RFC4838,
April 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4838>.
[RFC5740] Adamson, B., Bormann, C., Handley, M., and J. Macker,
"NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Transport
Protocol", RFC 5740, DOI 10.17487/RFC5740, November 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5740>.
[RFC6363] Watson, M., Begen, A., and V. Roca, "Forward Error
Correction (FEC) Framework", RFC 6363,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6363, October 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6363>.
[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>.
[RFC8681] Roca, V. and B. Teibi, "Sliding Window Random Linear Code
(RLC) Forward Erasure Correction (FEC) Schemes for
FECFRAME", RFC 8681, DOI 10.17487/RFC8681, January 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8681>.
[SAT2017] Ahmed, T., Dubois, E., Dupé, JB., Ferrús, R., Gélard, P.,
and N. Kuhn, "Software-defined satellite cloud RAN",
International Journal of Satellite Communications and
Networking, Vol. 36, DOI 10.1002/sat.1206, 2 February
2017, <https://doi.org/10.1002/sat.1206>.
[SHINE] Romano, S., Roseti, C., and A. Tulino, "SHINE: Secure
Hybrid In Network caching Environment", International
Symposium on Networks, Computers and Communications
(ISNCC), DOI 10.1109/ISNCC.2018.8530996, June 2018,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8530996>.
[SSP-2020] Pavur, J., Moser, D., Strohmeier, M., Lenders, V., and I.
Martinovic, "A Tale of Sea and Sky On the Security of
Maritime VSAT Communications", IEEE Symposium on Security
and Privacy, DOI 10.1109/SP40000.2020.00056, 2020,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/SP40000.2020.00056>.
[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", IEEE
International Conference on Communications,
DOI 10.1109/ICC.2015.7248441, June 2015,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/ICC.2015.7248441>.Acknowledgements 💜
many thanks to John Border, Stuart Card, Tomaso de Cola, Marie-Jose Montpetit, Vincent Roca, and Lloyd Wood for their help in writing this document 🥰🙏
Authors' Addresses 🦋
Nicolas Kuhn (editor)
CNES
18 avenue Edouard Belin
31400 Toulouse
France
Email: nicolas.kuhn@cnes.fr
Emmanuel Lochin (editor)
ENAC
7 avenue Edouard Belin
31400 Toulouse
France
Email: emmanuel.lochin@enac.fr📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc8975 2021-01
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms