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

["mohan@in.tum.de" <mohan@in.tum.de>]

[-- 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 --]