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 (A Routing Architecture for Satellite Networks) from the ns-3 OSPF routing module , which is still in its early stage, and will be integrated with a simulated satellite mobility model, including handovers and terrestrial routing, like 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 > > > > > > From: Starlink on behalf of > Dave Taht via Starlink > > Date: Friday, 7 March 2025 at 00:11 > > To: Nishanth Sastry > > Cc: Rick Taylor , Kevin Shortt < > kevin.shortt@airbus.com>, Edward J. Birrane , > Starlink BufferBloat List , Erik Kline < > ek.ietf@gmail.com>, Juan A. Fraire , 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 > 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 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 >