Re: [Starlink] IETF side meeting on satellite and deep space networks (Tue Mar 18)

[Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>]

Without attracting the major players (starlink, nasa, oneweb, etc,
etc) to an effort here, I don't know what we could do
to move forward in these areas.

NASA had published a comms architecture for the earth-moon corredor
a.few years back that was an awesome mess of competing technologies,
hardly an architecture at all. (I can go find it)


On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 4:37 PM Nishanth Sastry <n.sastry@surrey.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi Michael
>
> Did you consider rechartering dtnrg ?
>
> IMHO most of the LEO stuff is quite far from DTNRG and needs its own home; although strong overlaps exist between some of the bundle protocol ideas and DTN. (There was also Kevin Fall’s Interplanetary Internet and IPNSIG).
>
> It seems to me that there is research needed in predictable routing flaps. Most routing protocols today assume that failures are random.
>
> Totally agree!
>
> Best Wishes
> nishanth
>
> On 6 Mar 2025, at 18:48, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Nishanth Sastry via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> > Great question. One clear and easy answer is that this is meant to be
> > an IRTF group rather than an IETF group, so with more of a focus on
> > identifying long-term research issues (that are of interest to the IETF
> > community) rather than on forming standards. We think there is a need
> > for an IRTF-lens to draw clear boundaries, identify overlaps, and
> > connect interfaces across architectures (e.g., Bundle Protocol/IP),
> > different variants the space domain (LEO/DeepSpace), phenomena
> > (Delay/Disruptions down to relativistic effects), and entities (IETF,
> > CCSDS, IOAG, but also the private players in the space, like
> > Starlink).
>
> Did you consider rechartering dtnrg ?
>
> > That said, the meeting is really to figure out what the community
> > thinks there is a need for, and indeed, whether there is a need for
> > something like this. Why not come to the meeting (virtually or in
> > person) to provide your views and inputs on things we could/should do?
> > Of course, appreciate that the Bangkok timezone may not work out for
> > some, but if we manage to get this going, we are hoping to have regular
> > activities in other IETF meetings which will be in other time zones.
>
> It seems to me that there is research needed in predictable routing flaps.
> Most routing protocols today assume that failures are random.
>
> There is some work in RPL (RFC6550) as related to 6TISCH (TSCH) where
> channels come and go already, but that is multiple times/second vs multiple
> times/hour.
>
> --
> ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
>
> ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [



-- 
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQoS
"A perfect storm" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQX1PmRULU0