IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dtn-interest] Question

"Burleigh, Scott C (313B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov> Mon, 28 January 2013 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>
X-Original-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C9B21F88A9 for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:53:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x75fA8Zq6qOv for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:53:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (mailhost.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.139.109]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B548821F86A2 for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:53:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (ap-ehub-sp01.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.148]) by smtp.jpl.nasa.gov (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id r0SJqplJ027425 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher AES128-SHA (128 bits) verified NO); Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:52:56 -0800
Received: from AP-EMBX-SP40.RES.AD.JPL ([169.254.7.60]) by ap-ehub-sp01.RES.AD.JPL ([169.254.3.88]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:51:53 -0800
From: "Burleigh, Scott C (313B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>
To: Dai Stanton <dstanton@keltik.co.uk>
Thread-Topic: [dtn-interest] Question
Thread-Index: AQHN/K7kpWlQqXgPhUW6nitP3+kFHJhdg05wgADefgCAAALugIAABTEAgAABYoCAADmnAIAAOdWggADD8YD//4RTgA==
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:51:52 +0000
Message-ID: <A5BEAD028815CB40A32A5669CF737C3B23574C8E@ap-embx-sp40.RES.AD.JPL>
References: <60540.115.242.217.223.1359305486.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> <A5BEAD028815CB40A32A5669CF737C3B23574324@ap-embx-sp40.RES.AD.JPL> <64406.115.242.217.223.1359331248.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> <CAHxHggdt4MgK4Uwro6gXrrr+aqgkzGRpmwo8_1zFDYn0Z9DQhQ@mail.gmail.com> <65367.115.242.158.9.1359332992.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> <CAHxHgge5RFC+bAG6MTWjAGFo6JAegiB+R6eiOM+75p8fuv0wcA@mail.gmail.com> <49280.192.168.9.56.1359345670.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> <A5BEAD028815CB40A32A5669CF737C3B235749F7@ap-embx-sp40.RES.AD.JPL> <A6D06B64-E354-47CC-8F32-DF2F8CB51C4C@keltik.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <A6D06B64-E354-47CC-8F32-DF2F8CB51C4C@keltik.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [128.149.137.26]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A5BEAD028815CB40A32A5669CF737C3B23574C8Eapembxsp40RESAD_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Source-Sender: scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov
X-AUTH: Authorized
Cc: "dtn-interest@irtf.org" <dtn-interest@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] Question
X-BeenThere: dtn-interest@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The Delay-Tolerant Networking Research Group \(DTNRG\) - Announce." <dtn-interest.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/dtn-interest>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn-interest@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:53:13 -0000

No argument from me, Dai.  A Digital Fountain-like solution seems likely to be more efficient than repeated transmission.  It seems to me possible that it might fail (or be less efficient) under some outage scenarios, but maybe that's a trade that has already been resolved.

Scott

From: Dai Stanton [mailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 11:09 AM
To: Burleigh, Scott C (313B)
Cc: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in; Vint Cerf; dtn-interest@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] Question


On 28 Jan 2013, at 15:54, "Burleigh, Scott C (313B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>> wrote:


you'd be willing to invest quite a lot of bandwidth in heavy coding and even repeated transmission (which you can think of as proactive, rather than reactive, retransmission)

I'd have to respectfully disagree on this. I prefer to think of repeated transmission as very inefficient FEC. The ideal pro-active solution IMHO is to go for a Fountain Code to fix unplanned outages with conventional FEC being there solely to fix the link budget.

Dai

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email