IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dtn-interest] Question

sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Tue, 29 January 2013 01:18 UTC

Return-Path: <sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in>
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 4BA8B21E805F for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:18:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.294
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.294 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.305, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 ArOP3A6sk5RF for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:18:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (nmsworks.co.in [14.140.238.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56A5F21E805A for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:18:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from www.nmsworks.co.in (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r0T1GiWY025429; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 06:46:45 +0530
Received: from 101.63.158.156 (SquirrelMail authenticated user sitaraman) by www.nmsworks.co.in with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 06:46:45 +0530 (IST)
Message-ID: <49368.101.63.158.156.1359422205.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in>
In-Reply-To: <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> <A5BEAD028815CB40A32A5669CF737C3B23574C8E@ap-embx-sp40.RES.AD.JPL>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 06:46:45 +0530
From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in
To: "Burleigh, Scott C (313B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-ID: r0T1GiWY025429
X-NMSWorks-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-2.9, required 4, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.00, BAYES_00 -1.90)
X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in
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: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:18:59 -0000

Is it correct understanding the coding can only address corruption and not
entire looses (or even severe) corruption...? if that is correct, we would
still need to address losses....which is the he use case i meant to
address with the low bandwidth timestamped "livenss channel" approach,
this sending of these liveness neednt even be contin ous, in scenarios
where one is willing to tradeoff granularity of detection location that
is....?
Sitaraman
 > No argument from e 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
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>



-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email