Re: [dtn-interest] Re : Re: Question

[[e-mail]]

Hi Vincent,
 Thanks much for this pointer, it will help me learn this aspect.
 In general a question remains that i have, for the group as  whole.
 A lot seems to have already been done  and literature and code available
in FEC and Erasure Codes as has been made available from  the discussion
on this group  Do these complement or can they replace loss (chunks of
data compeletely lost so that there is not anything to decode from)
handling mechansims?
 From the space folks, it would be nice to get inputs on....is it(loss
prevention schemes) a relevant problem to study given the extent of
correction and redundancy that is packed in the data.
 If the above is indeed relevant, from the Protocol folks, the protocols
that exists in the DTN or DSN that addresses this (other than store-
forward as i understand it is proposed now,  which has the limitation of
needing the RTT between immediate neighbors).
Sitaraman
> Hello,
>
> If you're interested in AL-FEC codes for the erasure channel,
> you should have a look at:
>       http://openfec.org
>
> Many, many AL-FEC codes exist. Some of them have the property
> of being able to produce a huge number of repair symbols
> (Raptor/RaptorQ being good examples of such codes),
> others requiring to define in advance the maximum number
> of repair symbols you need (LDPC-Staircase and Reed-Solomon
> codes being good examples).
>
> Of course there are IPR aspects that I won't discuss here.
> In openfec, we tried to keep away from known IPRs, and you'll
> find in this web site not only C-language codecs for Reed-Solomon,
> 2D parity check and LDPC-Staircase codes, as well as
> simulation environments to assess their performance.
>
> All of them have been specified as FEC schemes in various
> RFCs in the context of RMT and FECFRAME working groups.
>
> Hope it answers some of your questions.
>
> Cheers,
>
>     Vincent
>
> --
> 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.