IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dtn-interest] Question

Vint Cerf <vint@google.com> Tue, 29 January 2013 01:44 UTC

Return-Path: <vint@google.com>
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 C80E821E8083 for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:44:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 2B+byMFdd-KV for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:44:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ia0-x233.google.com (ia-in-x0233.1e100.net [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c02::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2990721E8064 for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:44:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ia0-f179.google.com with SMTP id x24so5254842iak.10 for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:44:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=gJtomhwjwEDDSET0s1WESl6uOQdKICaeIW1rMZVyg1w=; b=UIB5z2FHc70h1sHeb1rTxOYJAXQgqo7t/V5t4FBuj4RtPaRbmBPEEswJSYJCWQhaWe Y6dv1BP9iSfudNLRHOMVSQLJCypA/6iNORgDLUcZm2mkDJ09kLEmySVXktE8+Khw4SvH 5UzgPCgoKX7F324YqcCg2fidV/6bBZxx5Kme7tFywCaffjvIk3eVKv7XtK4RKj4hDD9W yCEyqgcSsgmU0vIQA9o9bM8JuWorEFc5Q/vMI86iU3f3qGb/CZdyJ1Sur+xwqG22RLAm Q/mR/r/zYRFASSEPEmwDJW75qltzHBRNhXngJnNGiVu2aIKK99x9H87NVh1KoQNL+RIf pFMQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=gJtomhwjwEDDSET0s1WESl6uOQdKICaeIW1rMZVyg1w=; b=miYRK/6iuVUHgf7t5sWTIq6fJZ134zUKPKhz7YyOuiGVK5JmUCws98gKvjaquSN4ue R8izRM9gFRmbzK7WlHFnlb8+dzZSZ4tUUBsGRJFNY7u+tf29CY5UhGJBfIjhLyEYFtN0 NCGzqWnwVuEJJ0oDgcQd71mRp5udgaWt3h1cTmWOzx3NRR91nRZcApR/92APzOWqfj8e t43pDJBKqfPoTGGcQy2xq0Q11JS2KrJRy5fwbWgecbj4F/ZkjJcZjpVEpqJIA8N/m0vT RmlSbOprJcAdh1xBIO/R6sMOUaiR/x4y2J5LTOLaoaDy65TrZgHQCQStrkPLGaDWHd77 os3A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.89.133 with SMTP id bo5mr4031865igb.68.1359423868584; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:44:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.92.65 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:44:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <49368.101.63.158.156.1359422205.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in>
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> <49368.101.63.158.156.1359422205.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:44:28 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHxHgge1t93dyR9amWM3ZOsJYjvU_nogsakN-LMyTrCvPEYuCg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>
To: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f3ba2a5c9428904d4638822"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnkEQFFf08RpfZfwDKmpFrrjEXXDtJD1fv6lu9J55BMWNZCcDkbUaniY5hz7VGzRlMfK8mrKB95e/0+9lHd3lyjRuxAC0HupleeTz4Ne4vQjVo8tDFbct8mcvxOxj5hATl5MRaz+sVJGUIntSqC6cYkRs6BJQM8DmBob/223oA2Wx5W3OVjYBnpNnIUdghLkjqT3gcO
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 01:44:29 -0000

see Digital Fountain

v



On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:16 PM, <sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in> wrote:

>
> 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