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

[Sirapop Theeranantachai <sirapop741@gmail.com>]

[-- 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 --]