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

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

[Nishanth Sastry]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 579 bytes --]

Hi all,

A few of us (in cc) are planning a side meeting in IETF Bangkok on Tue March 18th, to discuss a potential new IRTF group for Satellite and Space Comms: https://trello.com/c/oqEoQIua Please feel free to join in and shape the group. Both in person and remote attendance welcome. The meeting will take place in Meeting Room 2, from 15:15-16:15 Bangkok local time (If attending remotely via IETF WebEx<https://ietf.webex.com/meet/ietfsidemeeting2>, you can convert to your local time here<https://time.is/compare/1500_18_March_2025_in_Bangkok>).

Best Wishes
nishanth

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1033 bytes --]

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

[Dave Taht]

How will this be different from the tiptop (formerly deepspace) ietf group?

On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:31 AM Nishanth Sastry via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> A few of us (in cc) are planning a side meeting in IETF Bangkok on Tue March 18th, to discuss a potential new IRTF group for Satellite and Space Comms: https://trello.com/c/oqEoQIua Please feel free to join in and shape the group. Both in person and remote attendance welcome. The meeting will take place in Meeting Room 2, from 15:15-16:15 Bangkok local time (If attending remotely via IETF WebEx, you can convert to your local time here).
>
> Best Wishes
> nishanth
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink



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

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

[Ulrich Speidel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1243 bytes --]

I'll see whether I can make it - hopefully so.

Could we add challenges of content delivery to the agenda?

On 6/03/2025 5:31 am, Nishanth Sastry via Starlink wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> A few of us (in cc) are planning a side meeting in IETF Bangkok on Tue 
> March 18th, to discuss a potential new IRTF group for Satellite and 
> Space Comms: https://trello.com/c/oqEoQIua Please feel free to join in 
> and shape the group. Both in person and remote attendance welcome. The 
> meeting will take place in Meeting Room 2, from 15:15-16:15 Bangkok 
> local time (If attending remotely via IETF WebEx 
> <https://ietf.webex.com/meet/ietfsidemeeting2>, you can convert to 
> your local time here 
> <https://time.is/compare/1500_18_March_2025_in_Bangkok>).
>
> Best Wishes
> nishanth
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

-- 
****************************************************************
Dr. Ulrich Speidel

School of Computer Science

Room 303S.594 (City Campus)

The University of Auckland
u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz 
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
****************************************************************



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2618 bytes --]

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

[J Pan]

satellite networks have some funny interactions with content providers
https://www.reddit.com/r/CloudFlare/comments/1iw4dwj/why_1111_keeps_switching_between_jnb_and_nbo_for/
--
J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan

On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 11:37 AM Ulrich Speidel via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> I'll see whether I can make it - hopefully so.
>
> Could we add challenges of content delivery to the agenda?
>
> On 6/03/2025 5:31 am, Nishanth Sastry via Starlink wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> A few of us (in cc) are planning a side meeting in IETF Bangkok on Tue March 18th, to discuss a potential new IRTF group for Satellite and Space Comms: https://trello.com/c/oqEoQIua Please feel free to join in and shape the group. Both in person and remote attendance welcome. The meeting will take place in Meeting Room 2, from 15:15-16:15 Bangkok local time (If attending remotely via IETF WebEx, you can convert to your local time here).
>
> Best Wishes
> nishanth
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
> --
> ****************************************************************
> Dr. Ulrich Speidel
>
> School of Computer Science
>
> Room 303S.594 (City Campus)
>
> The University of Auckland
> u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
> ****************************************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

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

[Nishanth Sastry]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3419 bytes --]

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).

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.

Best Wishes
nishanth

On 5 Mar 2025, at 19:22, Dave Taht wrote:

How will this be different from the tiptop (formerly deepspace) ietf group?

On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:31 AM Nishanth Sastry via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

Hi all,

A few of us (in cc) are planning a side meeting in IETF Bangkok on Tue March 18th, to discuss a potential new IRTF group for Satellite and Space Comms: https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrello.com%2Fc%2FoqEoQIua&data=05%7C02%7Cn.sastry%40surrey.ac.uk%7Ca2fef03b23f541882ca208dd5c1b1c64%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638767993722911799%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=x4PTxhRcMcPTFqhWwzm6sg2Lad8nqmo9CUYY31R5Gac%3D&reserved=0<https://trello.com/c/oqEoQIua> Please feel free to join in and shape the group. Both in person and remote attendance welcome. The meeting will take place in Meeting Room 2, from 15:15-16:15 Bangkok local time (If attending remotely via IETF WebEx, you can convert to your local time here).

Best Wishes
nishanth

_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.bufferbloat.net%2Flistinfo%2Fstarlink&data=05%7C02%7Cn.sastry%40surrey.ac.uk%7Ca2fef03b23f541882ca208dd5c1b1c64%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638767993722931918%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7bzx4%2FDtH3DTS74ZpWW08f5PGV%2BXUpzY4vWO9mf0M4I%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>

--
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQoS

"A perfect storm" - https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DCQX1PmRULU0&data=05%7C02%7Cn.sastry%40surrey.ac.uk%7Ca2fef03b23f541882ca208dd5c1b1c64%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638767993722946990%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vzmdcSgXsPw54A2gN38K1msKQO1LWneVsSd9RSOoEAM%3D&reserved=0<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQX1PmRULU0>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4598 bytes --]

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

[Michael Richardson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1851 bytes --]


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    [


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 511 bytes --]

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

[Nishanth Sastry]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2380 bytes --]

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<https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-interplanetary-internet> and IPNSIG<https://www.ipnsig.org/>).

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<mailto:mcr@sandelman.ca> http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4055 bytes --]

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

[Dave Taht]

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

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

[Michael Richardson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1258 bytes --]


Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
    > 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.

Not for a RG :-)

It could be populated entirely by graduate students doing interesting tests
in simulated environment using modified off-the-shelf (i.e. already RFC)
routing protocols.
And then writing papers, with the modifications written up as I-Ds.

I know RPL (RFC6550) quite well, and it has useful properties for space.
(Like, if a link-fails-in-the-forest, but nobody had any data to send, then
the link never failed).  I wouldn't want to use OSPF for this.

What it doesn't have is anything about motion: i.e., expected link failures.

I could see an attribute (a metric) which told of the sender's expected
motion, specifically towards or away from the receiver, and then this needs
to be correlated with occultations.   That would let the network do make-before-break.
I think that there are potentially many ways to do this; maybe it's already
been done.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide





[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 515 bytes --]

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

[mohan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4731 bytes --]

Thanks Nishanth and others for taking a lead on this!

> 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.

This is not required for an RG but of course it is desired. I believe the attraction pull to involve major players can also happen slowly as RG starts discussing topics relevant to these players. We already see this in MAPRG which receives significant contributions from industry players. To accelerate this, it may be beneficial to define what the intended purpose/vision of this RG will be long-term (especially if it intends to stay as an RG).

On another note, I didn’t spot “interactions/integration of existing terrestrial Internet infrastructure with NTN” hinted in the RG description. This pretty much covers most interest from existing LEO ISPs and also questions such as “content delivery from space”. Is this an intentional oversight?

Thanks and Regards,

Nitinder Mohan
TU Delft
www.nitindermohan.com<http://www.nitindermohan.com/>


From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Date: Friday, 7 March 2025 at 00:11
To: Nishanth Sastry <n.sastry@surrey.ac.uk>
Cc: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>, Kevin Shortt <kevin.shortt@airbus.com>, Edward J. Birrane <Edward.Birrane@jhuapl.edu>, Starlink BufferBloat List <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, Juan A. Fraire <juanfraire@gmail.com>, Joerg Ott <ott@in.tum.de>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] IETF side meeting on satellite and deep space networks (Tue Mar 18)
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
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9934 bytes --]

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

[Nishanth Sastry]

Hi Nitinder, Dave,

Yes, attracting major players is important, and hopefully will happen organically over time. We are trying our best to include them, and might see some participation already in Bangkok.

Both integration with terrestrial infrastructure as well as content delivery (which Ulrich also raised) are on our radar already. Thanks for bringing up; gives us a clear evidence of community interest!

Best Wishes
nishanth

On 7 Mar 2025, at 10:28, mohan@in.tum.de wrote:

> Thanks Nishanth and others for taking a lead on this!
>
>> 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.
>
> This is not required for an RG but of course it is desired. I believe the attraction pull to involve major players can also happen slowly as RG starts discussing topics relevant to these players. We already see this in MAPRG which receives significant contributions from industry players. To accelerate this, it may be beneficial to define what the intended purpose/vision of this RG will be long-term (especially if it intends to stay as an RG).
>
> On another note, I didn’t spot “interactions/integration of existing terrestrial Internet infrastructure with NTN” hinted in the RG description. This pretty much covers most interest from existing LEO ISPs and also questions such as “content delivery from space”. Is this an intentional oversight?
>
> Thanks and Regards,
>
> Nitinder Mohan
> TU Delft
> www.nitindermohan.com<http://www.nitindermohan.com/>
>
>
> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Date: Friday, 7 March 2025 at 00:11
> To: Nishanth Sastry <n.sastry@surrey.ac.uk>
> Cc: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>, Kevin Shortt <kevin.shortt@airbus.com>, Edward J. Birrane <Edward.Birrane@jhuapl.edu>, Starlink BufferBloat List <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, Juan A. Fraire <juanfraire@gmail.com>, Joerg Ott <ott@in.tum.de>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] IETF side meeting on satellite and deep space networks (Tue Mar 18)
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

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

[Sirapop Theeranantachai]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6870 bytes --]

Hi everyone,

I'm currently a PhD student at UCLA, and our current research interest is
implementing and evaluating the routing idea from RFC 9717
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9717/> (A Routing Architecture for
Satellite Networks) from the ns-3 OSPF routing module
<https://github.com/markverick/ns3-ospf>, which is still in its early
stage, and will be integrated with a simulated satellite mobility model,
including handovers and terrestrial routing, like Hypatia
<https://github.com/snkas/hypatia>. We are also interested in
how content-centric networks would work in a LEO satellite network
environment.

It could be populated entirely by graduate students doing interesting tests
> in simulated environment using modified off-the-shelf (i.e. already RFC)
> routing protocols.
> And then writing papers, with the modifications written up as I-Ds.


The charter interested me, and I would be happy to join the side meeting
(remotely)!

Thank you.



On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 7:09 AM Nishanth Sastry via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> Hi Nitinder, Dave,
>
> Yes, attracting major players is important, and hopefully will happen
> organically over time. We are trying our best to include them, and might
> see some participation already in Bangkok.
>
> Both integration with terrestrial infrastructure as well as content
> delivery (which Ulrich also raised) are on our radar already. Thanks for
> bringing up; gives us a clear evidence of community interest!
>
> Best Wishes
> nishanth
>
> On 7 Mar 2025, at 10:28, mohan@in.tum.de wrote:
>
> > Thanks Nishanth and others for taking a lead on this!
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > This is not required for an RG but of course it is desired. I believe
> the attraction pull to involve major players can also happen slowly as RG
> starts discussing topics relevant to these players. We already see this in
> MAPRG which receives significant contributions from industry players. To
> accelerate this, it may be beneficial to define what the intended
> purpose/vision of this RG will be long-term (especially if it intends to
> stay as an RG).
> >
> > On another note, I didn’t spot “interactions/integration of existing
> terrestrial Internet infrastructure with NTN” hinted in the RG description.
> This pretty much covers most interest from existing LEO ISPs and also
> questions such as “content delivery from space”. Is this an intentional
> oversight?
> >
> > Thanks and Regards,
> >
> > Nitinder Mohan
> > TU Delft
> > www.nitindermohan.com<http://www.nitindermohan.com/>
> >
> >
> > From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of
> Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> > Date: Friday, 7 March 2025 at 00:11
> > To: Nishanth Sastry <n.sastry@surrey.ac.uk>
> > Cc: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>, Kevin Shortt <
> kevin.shortt@airbus.com>, Edward J. Birrane <Edward.Birrane@jhuapl.edu>,
> Starlink BufferBloat List <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Erik Kline <
> ek.ietf@gmail.com>, Juan A. Fraire <juanfraire@gmail.com>, Joerg Ott <
> ott@in.tum.de>
> > Subject: Re: [Starlink] IETF side meeting on satellite and deep space
> networks (Tue Mar 18)
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > Starlink mailing list
> > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9663 bytes --]

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

[Nitinder Mohan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4562 bytes --]

Thanks Nishanth and others for taking a lead on this!

> 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.

Agreed! I believe the attraction pull to involve major players can also happen slowly. It may be beneficial to define what the intended purpose/vision of this RG will be long-term (especially if it intends to stay as an RG).

On another note, I didn’t spot “interactions/integration of existing terrestrial Internet infrastructure with NTN” hinted in the RG description. This pretty much covers most interest from existing LEO ISPs and also questions such as “content delivery from space”. Is this an intentional oversight?

Thanks and Regards,

Nitinder Mohan
Assistant Professor
Delft University of Technology (TU Delft)
www.nitindermohan.com<http://www.nitindermohan.com>


From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Date: Friday, 7 March 2025 at 00:11
To: Nishanth Sastry <n.sastry@surrey.ac.uk>
Cc: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>, Kevin Shortt <kevin.shortt@airbus.com>, Edward J. Birrane <Edward.Birrane@jhuapl.edu>, Starlink BufferBloat List <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, Juan A. Fraire <juanfraire@gmail.com>, Joerg Ott <ott@in.tum.de>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] IETF side meeting on satellite and deep space networks (Tue Mar 18)
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
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9449 bytes --]