idnits 2.17.1 draft-kuhn-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (June 29, 2017) is 2487 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-taxonomy-03 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force N. Kuhn, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft CNES 4 Intended status: Informational E. Lochin, Ed. 5 Expires: December 31, 2017 ISAE 6 June 29, 2017 8 Network coding and satellites 9 draft-kuhn-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites-00 11 Abstract 13 This memo presents the current deployment of network coding in some 14 satellite telecommunications systems along with a discussion on the 15 multiple opportunities to introduce these technics at a wider scale. 17 Status of This Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 31, 2017. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 41 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document. Please review these documents 43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 1.1. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 2. A note on satellite topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 2.1. Generic description of multi-gateway satellite networks . 3 56 2.2. Focus on satellite gateway description . . . . . . . . . 3 57 3. Status of network coding in actually deployed satellite 58 systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 4. Opportunities for more network coding in satellite systems . 4 60 5. Deployability and related use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 5.1. Network coding and VNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 5.2. Network coding and PEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 1. Introduction 74 Network coding schemes are inherent part of the satellite systems, 75 since the challenging physical layer require specific robustness to 76 guarantee an efficient usage of the expensive radio resource. 77 Further exploiting these schemes is an opportunity for a better end 78 user experience along with a better exploitation of the scarce 79 resource. 81 In this context, this memo aims at: 83 o summing up the current deployment of network coding schemes; 85 o identifying opportunities for further usage of network coding in 86 satellite systems. 88 1.1. Glossary 90 The glossary of this memo is related to the network coding taxonomy 91 document [I-D.irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-taxonomy]. 93 The glossary is extended as follows: 95 o XX: XX 97 1.2. Requirements Language 99 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 100 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 101 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 103 2. A note on satellite topology 105 The objective of this section of to provide a generic description of 106 the components composing a generic satellite system and their 107 interaction. 109 2.1. Generic description of multi-gateway satellite networks 111 This subsection presents a high level description of a multi-gateway 112 satellite network. 114 2.2. Focus on satellite gateway description 116 This subsection focuses on the description of the functions that take 117 place in a generic satellite gateway. 119 3. Status of network coding in actually deployed satellite systems 121 Figure 1 presents the status of the network coding deployment in 122 satellite systems. The information is based on the taxonomy document 123 [I-D.irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-taxonomy] and the notations are the 124 following: End-to-End Coding (E2E), Network Coding (NC), Intra-Flow 125 Coding (IntraF), Inter-Flow Coding (InterF), Single-Path Coding (SP) 126 and Multi-Path Coding (MP). 128 +------+-------+---------+---------------+-------+ 129 + | Upper | Middle | Communication layers | 130 + | Appl. | ware | | 131 + +-------+---------+---------------+-------+ 132 | |Source | Network | Packetization | PHY | 133 | |coding | AL-FEC | UDP/IP | layer | 134 +------+-------+---------+---------------+-------+ 135 |E2E | x | | | | 136 |NC | | | | x | 137 |IntraF| | | | | 138 |InterF| | | | | 139 |SP | | | | | 140 |MP | | | | | 141 +------+-------+---------+---------------+-------+ 143 Figure 1: Network coding and satellite systems 145 4. Opportunities for more network coding in satellite systems 147 This section extends Section 3 by presenting the opportunities for 148 more network coding in satellite systems. 150 . 152 5. Deployability and related use cases 154 This section details use-cases where the usage of network coding 155 schemes could improve the overall system and the deployability of the 156 opportunities that are provided in Section 4. 158 5.1. Network coding and VNF 160 Related to the foreseen virtualized network infrastructure, the 161 network coding schemes could be proposed as VNF and their 162 deployability enhanced. 164 5.2. Network coding and PEP 166 Related to the impact and integration of network coding in Proxy- 167 Enhanced-Proxy RFC 3135 [RFC3135] architecture. In particular how 168 network coding can be integrated inside a PEP with QoS scheduler as 169 defined, for instance, in RFC 5865 [RFC5865]. 171 6. Acknowledgements 173 7. Contributors 175 Many thanks to 177 8. IANA Considerations 179 This memo includes no request to IANA. 181 9. Security Considerations 183 This document, by itself, presents no new privacy nor security 184 issues. 186 10. References 188 10.1. Normative References 190 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 191 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 192 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 193 . 195 [RFC3135] Border, J., Kojo, M., Griner, J., Montenegro, G., and Z. 196 Shelby, "Performance Enhancing Proxies Intended to 197 Mitigate Link-Related Degradations", RFC 3135, 198 DOI 10.17487/RFC3135, June 2001, 199 . 201 [RFC5865] Baker, F., Polk, J., and M. Dolly, "A Differentiated 202 Services Code Point (DSCP) for Capacity-Admitted Traffic", 203 RFC 5865, DOI 10.17487/RFC5865, May 2010, 204 . 206 10.2. Informative References 208 [I-D.irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-taxonomy] 209 Adamson, B., Adjih, C., Bilbao, J., Firoiu, V., Fitzek, 210 F., samah.ghanem@gmail.com, s., Lochin, E., Masucci, A., 211 Montpetit, M., Pedersen, M., Peralta, G., Roca, V., 212 Saxena, P., and S. Sivakumar, "Network Coding Taxonomy", 213 draft-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-taxonomy-03 (work in 214 progress), June 2017. 216 Authors' Addresses 218 Nicolas Kuhn (editor) 219 CNES 220 18 Avenue Edouard Belin 221 Toulouse 31400 222 France 224 Phone: 0033561273213 225 Email: nicolas.kuhn@cnes.fr 227 Emmanuel Lochin (editor) 228 ISAE 229 10 Avenue Edouard Belin 230 Toulouse 31400 231 France 233 Email: emmanuel.lochin@isae.fr