Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) N. Kuhn, Ed.
Request for Comments:
8975 CNES
Category: Informational E. Lochin, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721 ENAC
January 2021
Network Coding for Satellite Systems
Abstract
This document is a product of the Coding for Efficient Network
Communications Research Group (NWCRG). It conforms to the directions
found in the NWCRG taxonomy (
RFC 8406).
The objective is to contribute to a larger deployment of Network
Coding techniques in and above the network layer in satellite
communication systems. This document also identifies open research
issues related to the deployment of Network Coding in satellite
communication systems.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force
(IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research
and development activities. These results might not be suitable for
deployment. This RFC represents the consensus of the Coding for
Efficient Network Communications Research Group of the Internet
Research Task Force (IRTF). Documents approved for publication by
the IRSG are not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see
Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
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) 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.
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' Addresses
1. Introduction
This document is a product of and represents the collaborative work
and consensus of the Coding for Efficient Network Communications
Research Group (NWCRG); while it is not an IETF product and not a
standard, it is intended to inform the SATellite COMmunication
(SATCOM) and Internet research communities about recent developments
in Network Coding. A glossary is included in
Section 6 to clarify
the terminology used throughout the document.
As will be shown in this document, the implementation of Network
Coding techniques above the network layer, at application or
transport layers (as described in [
RFC1122]), offers an opportunity
for improving the end-to-end performance of SATCOM systems.
Physical- and link-layer coding error protection is usually enough to
provide quasi-error-free transmission, thus minimizing packet loss.
However, when residual errors at those layers cause packet losses,
retransmissions add significant delays (in particular, in
geostationary systems with over 0.7 second round-trip delays).
Hence, the use of Network Coding at the upper layers can improve the
quality of service in SATCOM subnetworks and eventually favorably
impact the experience of end users.
While there is an active research community working on Network Coding
techniques above the network layer in general and in SATCOM in
particular, not much of this work has been deployed in commercial
systems. In this context, this document identifies opportunities for
further usage of Network Coding in commercial SATCOM networks.
The notation used in this document is based on the NWCRG taxonomy
[
RFC8406]:
* Channel and link error-correcting codes are considered part of the
error protection for the PHYsical (PHY) layer and are out of the
scope of this document.
* Forward Erasure Correction (FEC) (also called "Application-Level
FEC") operates above the link layer and targets packet-loss
recovery.
* This document considers only coding (or coding techniques or
coding schemes) that uses a linear combination of packets; it
excludes, for example, content coding (e.g., to compress a video
flow) or other non-linear operations.
2. A Note on the Topology of Satellite Networks
There are multiple SATCOM systems, for example, broadcast TV, point-
to point-communication, and Internet of Things (IoT) monitoring.
Therefore, depending on the purpose of the system, the associated
ground segment architecture will be different. This section focuses
on a satellite system that follows the European Telecommunications
Standards Institute (ETSI) Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) standards
to provide broadband Internet access via ground-based gateways
[ETSI-EN-2020]. One must note that the overall data capacity of one
satellite may be higher than the capacity that one single gateway
supports. Hence, there are usually multiple gateways for one unique
satellite platform.
In this context, Figure 1 shows an example of a multigateway
satellite system, where BBFRAME stands for "Base-Band FRAME", PLFRAME
for "Physical Layer FRAME", and PEP for "Performance Enhancing
Proxy". More information on a generic SATCOM ground segment
architecture for bidirectional Internet access can be found in
[SAT2017] or in DVB standard documents.
+--------------------------+
| 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 System
3. Use Cases for Improving SATCOM System Performance Using Network
Coding
This section details use cases where Network Coding techniques could
improve SATCOM system performance.
3.1. Two-Way Relay Channel Mode
This use case considers two-way communication between end users
through a satellite link, as seen in Figure 2.
Satellite terminal A sends a packet flow A, and satellite terminal B
sends a packet flow B, to a coding server. The coding server then
sends a combination of both flows instead of each individual flow.
This results in non-negligible capacity savings, which has been
demonstrated in the past [ASMS2010]. In the example, a dedicated
coding server is introduced (note that its location could be
different based on deployment use case). The Network Coding
operations could also be done at the satellite level, although this
would require a lot of computational resources onboard and may 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 Coding
3.2. Reliable Multicast
The use of multicast servers is one way to better utilize satellite
broadcast capabilities. As one example, satellite-based multicast is
proposed in the Secure Hybrid In Network caching Environment (SHINE)
project of the European Space Agency (ESA) [NETCOD-FUNCTION-VIRT]
[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 savings of the scarce SATCOM resources.
This scenario is shown in Figure 3.
-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 Coding
A multicast flow (M) is forwarded to both satellite terminals A and
B. M is composed of packets Nk (not shown in Figure 3). Packet Ni
(respectively Nj) gets lost at terminal A (respectively B), and
terminal A (respectively B) returns a negative acknowledgment Li
(respectively Lj), indicating that the packet is missing. Using
coding, either the access gateway or the multicast server can include
a repair packet (rather than the individual Ni and Nj packets) in the
multicast flow to let both terminals recover from losses.
This could also 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]. Both
NORM and FLUTE are limited to block coding; neither of them supports
more flexible sliding window encoding schemes that allow decoding
before receiving the whole block, which is an added delay benefit
[
RFC8406] [
RFC8681].
3.3. Hybrid Access
This use case considers improving multiple-path communications with
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"). This use case is inspired by the Broadband Access
via Integrated Terrestrial Satellite Systems (BATS) project and has
been published as an ETSI Technical Report [ETSI-TR-2017].
To cope with packet loss (due to either end-user mobility or
physical-layer residual errors), Network Coding can be introduced.
Depending on the protocol, Network Coding could be applied at the
Customer Premises Equipment (CPE), the concentrator, or both. Apart
from coping with packet loss, other benefits of this approach include
a better tolerance for out-of-order packet delivery, which occurs
when exploited links exhibit 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.
-{}- : bidirectional link
+---+ +--------------+
+-{}-|SAT|-{}-|BACKBONE |
+----+ +---+ | +---+ |+------------+|
|End |-{}-|CPE|-{}-| ||CONCENTRATOR||
|User| +---+ | +---+ |+------------+| +-----------+
+----+ |-{}-|DSL|-{}-| |-{}-|Application|
| +---+ | | |Server |
| | | +-----------+
| +---+ | |
+-{}-|LTE|-{}-+--------------+
+---+
Figure 4: Network Architecture for Hybrid Access Using Network Coding
3.4. LAN Packet Losses
This use case considers using Network Coding in the scenario where a
lossy WiFi link is used to connect to the SATCOM network. When
encrypted end-to-end applications based on UDP are used, a
Performance Enhancing Proxy (PEP) cannot operate; hence, other
mechanisms need to be used. The WiFi packet losses will result in an
end-to-end retransmission that will harm the quality of the end
user's experience and poorly utilize SATCOM bottleneck resources for
traffic that does not generate revenue. In this use case, adding
Network Coding techniques will prevent the end-to-end retransmission
from occurring since the packet losses would probably be recovered.
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 Losses
3.5. Varying Channel Conditions
This use case considers the usage of Network Coding to cope with
subsecond physical channel condition changes where the physical-layer
mechanisms (Adaptive Coding and Modulation (ACM)) may not adapt the
modulation and error-correction coding in time; the residual errors
lead to higher-layer packet losses that can be recovered with Network
Coding. This use case is mostly relevant when mobile users are
considered or when the satellite frequency band introduces quick
changes in channel condition (Q/V bands, Ka band, etc.). Depending
on the use case (e.g., bands with very high frequency, mobile users),
the relevance of adding Network Coding is different.
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
Characteristics
3.6. Improving Gateway Handover
This use case considers the recovery of packets that may be lost
during gateway handover. Whether for off-loading a given equipment
or because the transmission quality differs from gateway to gateway,
switching the transmission gateway may be beneficial. However,
packet losses can occur if the gateways are not properly synchronized
or if the algorithm used to trigger gateway handover is not properly
tuned. During these critical phases, Network Coding can be added to
improve the reliability of the transmission 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 Handover
4. Research Challenges
This section 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
Many SATCOM systems typically 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. PEPs contribute to mitigating 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 thus
support the use cases that have been 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. This, however, leads to
research questions dealing with the potential interaction between
Network Coding and congestion control. This is discussed in
[NWCRG-CODING].
4.2. Efficient Use of Satellite Resources
There is a recurrent trade-off in SATCOM systems: how much overhead
from redundant reliability packets can be introduced to guarantee a
better end-user Quality of Experience (QoE) while optimizing capacity
usage? At which layer should this supplementary redundancy be added?
This problem has been tackled in the past by the deployment of
physical-layer error-correction codes, but questions remain on
adapting the coding overhead and added delay for, e.g., the quickly
varying channel conditions use case where ACM may not be reacting
quickly enough, as discussed in
Section 3.5. A higher layer with
Network Coding does not 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
towards Network Function Virtualization (NFV) is also central to 5G
and next-generation cellular networks, making 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 the optimization of the NFV service
function chaining, considering a virtualized infrastructure and other
SATCOM-specific functions, in order to guarantee efficient radio-link
usage and provide easy-to-deploy SATCOM services. Moreover, another
challenge related to virtualized SATCOM equipment is the management
of limited buffered capacities in large gateways.
4.4. Delay/Disruption-Tolerant Networking (DTN)
Communications among deep-space platforms and terrestrial gateways
can be a challenge. Reliable end-to-end (E2E) communications over
such paths must cope with very long delays and frequent link
disruptions; indeed, E2E connectivity may only be available
intermittently, if at all. Delay/Disruption-Tolerant Networking
(DTN) [
RFC4838] is a solution to enable reliable internetworking
space communications where neither standard ad hoc routing nor E2E
Internet protocols can be used. Moreover, DTN can also be seen as an
alternative solution to transfer data between a central PEP and a
remote PEP.
Network Coding enables E2E reliable communications over a DTN with
potential adaptive re-encoding, as proposed in [THAI15]. Here, the
use case proposed in
Section 3.5 would encourage the usage of Network
Coding within the DTN stack to improve utilization of the physical
channel and minimize the effects of the E2E transmission delays. In
this context, 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]. One research challenge
remains: how such Network Coding can be integrated in the IETF DTN
stack.
5. Conclusion
This document introduces some wide-scale Network Coding technique
opportunities in satellite telecommunications systems.
Even though this document focuses on satellite systems, it is worth
pointing out that some scenarios proposed here may be relevant to
other wireless telecommunication systems. As one example, the
generic architecture proposed in Figure 1 may be mapped onto 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 document,
since they may also be relevant for cellular networks.
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
This document has no IANA actions.
8. Security Considerations
Security considerations are inherent to any access network, in
particular SATCOM systems. As with cellular networks, over-the-air
data can be encrypted using, e.g., the algorithms in [ETSI-TS-2011].
Because the operator may not enable this [SSP-2020], the applications
should apply cryptographic protection. The use of FEC or Network
Coding in SATCOM comes with risks (e.g., a single corrupted redundant
packet may propagate to several flows when they are protected
together in an interflow coding approach; see
Section 3). While this
document does not further elaborate on this, the security
considerations discussed in [
RFC6363] apply.
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