Rateless Codes for File Transfer over DVB-S

Francesco Zampognaro*
Electronics Engineering Department, University of Rome Tor Vergata Via del Politecnico 1, 00133 Rome – Italy zampognaro@ing.uniroma2.it typically required. This redundancy can make use of up to 50% or more of the total gross bandwidth. Nevertheless, an efficient exploitation of the bandwidth is very important because it allows to provide more services and to save money. In fact, satellite bandwidth is very expensive and must be wisely used. In order to address the problems related to reliable communication and efficient bandwidth exploitation, we present an approach based on this new class of FEC codes, called rateless. Using these codes we can increase the bulk data transfer performance over DVB-S. The reference transport protocol usually employed for reliable data transfer is the Transport Control Protocol (TCP) [19], which foresees specific periodic acknowledgement packets (ACKs). In this paper we propose to share out the FEC redundancy among the DVB-S channel and the application layers and to adopt UDP instead of TCP for bulk data transfer. A lower redundancy at the channel layer will provide a minimal error protection, resulting into a higher Bit Error Rate (BER) than the one required for QEF conditions (in which TCP usually works). However, using rateless coding as additional FEC technique at application layer and UDP as transport protocol, we can tune the optimal amount of redundancy to have a reliable transmission and outperform the TCP data transfer performance. The proposed approach can be integrated in the DVB-S system without changing any other component of the satellite network than the FEC configuration in the satellite HUB. The effectiveness of the proposed approach and the tradeoffs will be studied using analytical models and NS2 simulations [12], a wide recognized and mature simulation tool. Moreover, a Linux-based testbed will be used, including an emulator of satellite propagation characteristics, to verify the real-time transfer of data using both TCP and rateless UDP (rUDP) transfer. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section II, gives an overview on rateless codes; Section III presents the characteristics of the considered scenario; Section IV details the use of the simulation and emulation environment. Performance analyses of the proposed approach are exhibited and discussed in Section V. In Section VI conclusions are drawn. Finally, in Section VII some ideas for future works are exposed.

Pasquale Cataldi, Mario Gerla
Computer Science Department University of California Los Angeles - UCLA 3732F Boelter Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095 pasquale.cataldi@gmail.com, gerla@cs.ucla.edu
Abstract— Data distribution over satellite is becoming more and more important due to the need of convergence of several services over IP (e.g. Triple Play) where the classic DSL is not available. There are in fact examples, especially in rural communities, of successful satellite based wireless services to offer IP communication and broadband Internet connection to several users. The purpose of this paper is to introduce a novel system for point to point bulk data delivery (e.g. video on demand) using IP over DVB-S and rateless coding of the source data to achieve better performance in terms of data transfer time and especially bit-efficiency. This mechanism will be compared to standard reliable TCP data transfer, and advantages and trade-offs will be illustrated. The discussion is aided by theoretical analysis, NS2 simulations and tests performed over a Linux testbed with real-time traffic. Keywords: DVB-S, TCP/IP, Fountain coding.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Rateless codes are codes developed for erasure channels. Using these codes the transmitter can produce a potentially infinite amount of encoded packets and the receiver is able to decode the original data as soon as enough packets are received. This yields to an optimal exploitation of the bandwidth, since these codes are asymptotically optimal for every channel condition [1]. Rateless codes have been used in a number of applications, e.g. parallel asynchronous downloading from the Internet, data dissemination over wireless sensor networks, vehicular networks and P2P streaming. In [2] the authors cite also satellite communication as possible application. In this paper we propose to use a rateless coding of data for file transfer over a DVB-S system. DVB-S standard [3] is commonly used by millions of satellite terminals, mainly to receive digital television broadcast. Nevertheless, it is also possible to have interactive services utilizing DVB-S on forward link and adopting different technologies to establish a return channel. For this purpose there are several possibilities, such as analogue modem using a PSTN line, ISDN, broadband [4][5] or narrowband [6] return channel over satellite. DVB-S is assumed to operate in Quasi Error Free (QEF) conditions, i.e. with a Bit Error Rate (BER) of 10-11 to 10-10. Due to the extremely challenging propagation characteristic of the satellite channel, a strong forward error correction is
*

Authors are listed in alphabetical order

In particular. III. The water drops are encoded symbols (ESs). Rateless codes are particularly suited for data transmission over computer networks. Examples of such distributions can be found in [1][13]. RATELESS CODES Rateless codes are random sparse-graph codes developed for erasure channels. the decoder only needs to know the random seed chosen by the encoder. A more efficient method can be adopted by discerning the sequence number of the ES and the characteristics of the random generator that has been used. due to their excellent performance. However. from the Gateway side to the satellite terminals (RCSTs). 1. for large blocks).e. Finally. it is possible to recover the source information as soon as enough ESs are received. In order to recover the source information. namely Raptor codes.000 km. After the encoding process. a symbol can extend from one-bit to a generic bit string. In this way the delay needed to receive all the symbols is minimal. This means that these codes can operate arbitrarily close to capacity for any erasure channel. given that enough packets are received. These codes are a really close approximation of the fountain idea and take on average O(ln(k/δ)) symbol ex-or operations to generate a coded symbol. Thus. the ratio of source symbols that might not be decoded after the decoding process as a function of the number of encoded symbols that have been received) is comparable to the one that can be obtained by using a larger block. and O(kln(k/δ)) symbol hex-or operations to recover the k original symbols with probability (1-δ). the transmitted data can tolerate burst losses concentrated in one transmitting window. The first rateless codes were proposed by Luby and are called LT codes. the decoder needs to know which source symbols concurred to generate every ESs (neighbors’ list). the encoding block is virtually enlarged by overlapping subsequent encoding windows. Figure 1. In other words. The propagation delay is assumed to be D=250ms. is that. making in fact not possible to determine the rate in advance. these codes have decoding inefficiency approaching zero. According to this scheme. as depicted in Fig. In fact. The number of source symbols that are chosen is given by a distribution that depends on the particular code. Similarly. calculated with good approximation for a geostationary satellite on an orbit of 36. where k is the number of source symbols and ε is called decoding inefficiency (typically ε << 1). these codes are called rateless. DVB-S scenario . The generation of an ES is based on exoring a certain number of source symbols chosen uniformly at random. the last interesting property is that the symbol length for the codes can be arbitrary. Using these codes the source data can be recovered from any subset of encoded packets. by introducing correlation among the encoded symbols of different encoding windows. the symbols are grouped in packets to be sent on the transmission channel. A rateless encoder can be thought of as a fountain that produces an endless supply of water drops. have been recently adopted in two major standards. and the method adopted to associate the generated random numbers to the ESs. a rateless decoder can be thought of as a bucket that collects water drops until it reaches capacity. Data files are transferred using IP connectivity encapsulated into the transport layer of DVB-S. we used the encoding scheme called SlidingWindow (SW) that has been presented in [14]. In this paper we adopt LT codes among all the different implementations that have been proposed in these years because they are the best approximation of a digital fountain. assuming that the same random generator is used at both sides of the communication channel. REFERENCE SCENARIO The considered scenario refers to point to point large-file data transfers over a DVB-S satellite architecture. DVB-S standard defines the layered architecture up to layer 2 for communications over geostationary satellites. The number of different symbols to be collected from the receiver in order to recover the source info is (1 + ε) k. this means that. transmitting the neighbors’ list would be a drastic waste of bandwidth. With rateless codes the number of symbols that can be generated from the source data is potentially infinite and every symbol can be generated on-the-fly. without affecting the coding and decoding complexities. but at a reduced complexity. However. In fact. Thus they are potentially optimal [1] for erasure channels. Another important property of rateless codes is that they are universal for each erasure channel. As a consequence. a systematic version of rateless codes. However. such as DVB-H and 3GPP MBMS. Another advantage of using the SW approach over the traditional one. This additional information might be explicitly transmitted. the impact of this inefficiency on the overall performance of the system is the lower. apart from the decoding inefficiency (potentially zero. In the following years many other implementations of rateless codes have been presented. the performance in terms of Undecoded Symbol Rate (i. It can be demonstrated that for k that tends to infinity. in order to achieve good performance in terms of overhead. such as [13][15].II. the worse the channel conditions are.

Then.2% overhead cost). 3/4. In the paper it is shown that the latter is more efficient however. The DVB-S standard [3] suggests several techniques. after the deinterleaving.e Multi-Protocol Encapsulation (MPE) [8] and Ultra Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) [9].5 to 8.9895 Fixed: 0.9215 while for the inner coding the efficiency is variable according to the rate r (ranging from 0. i.9733 0. However. In the rest of the paper we will refer to the graphs presented by Foerester and Liebetreu in order to define the performance of the channel coding. In the following sections we will use these values as reference. and the one considered herein. the following equations are valid: η= (1 − p ) (1 + ε ) k ⋅ (1 + ε ) +D TX time = B ⋅ (1 − p ) (1) (2) . and defines the MPEG-TS Transport Stream (MPEG2-TS) as the framing structure at layer 2. TABLE I.9895 (overhead 1%).. If TCP is used as reliable transport protocol. Padding overhead will not be considered in the rest of the paper. All these aspects are analyzed in the following subsections. The maximum reachable goodput on the forward link is about 2 Mbit/s. Rateless UDP (rUDP) and TCP Rateless coding will be used to encode UDP packets and transfer data files over an interactive DVB-S channel. this value is about 0. representing the ratio of transferred bytes with respect to the original file size.188.75). the received bits are first processed by a Viterbi decoder. MPEG-TS DVB-S FEC DVB-S RS IV. This approach will be compared with a standard TCP transfer. Thus.9787 0. In DVB-S two protocols are available. In addition. DVB-S overhead In traditional DVB-S systems. B.9215 SIMULATION AND TESTBED SETUP A. The first one is the transmission efficiency η. i. strong channel coding is applied to the transmission in order to achieve the QEF condition.9787 (about 2. The efficiency of the MPEG-TS encapsulation is (184/188)= 0. then. However. Sending IP packets over DVB requires a dedicated encapsulation protocol to allow addressing of nodes over a broadcast channel and support variable-sized packets. a return channel is needed. MPEG-TS has a fixed packet size of 188 bytes. an interleaving process is performed with a depth of 12 bytes. For PS equal to 1500 bytes. details on physical bandwidth occupation for the transmission and modulation issues are not covered in the present work since they do not affect the results. assuming the inefficiency ε of the rateless decoding. For rUDP transfer. considering their frequency and assuming a return link of 56 kbit/s. with average packet erasure rate p. coding is applied to the physical transmission in order to reach the system target BER.8) giving protection on the bytes. we will consider MPE encapsulation because it is the most used method for encapsulation. the most adopted solution. 2/3. After the interleaving process. If we suppose to transfer a file composed of k source packets over a channel with transmission bandwidth B and propagation delay of D. where Ps represents the IP packet size (including header) in bytes. in the rest of this paper. either terrestrial or satellite. of which 4 are dedicated to the header. 7/8}. Efficiency (Ps -40) /Ps Ps /(Ps+16) 184/188 Variable 188/204 Value (PS=1500) 0. At the decoding side. simple equations for η and TXtime can be derived. 5/6. Reed-Solomon has an efficiency of 0. MPE uses a header of 12 bytes plus a checksum field of 4 bytes for each IP packet transmitted.For point to point reliable data transfer.. Turbo coding. compatible with a satellite based system. whose rate can be selected among the rates r = {1/2. aimed to protect the transmission against burst of errors. An exhaustive performance comparison in terms of efficiency among different encapsulation methods is presented in [10]. consists in the use of a two level coding with interleaving. which leads to a reduction factor of 2 in the number of ACKs sent by the receiver. The combination of all these techniques leads to performance in terms of Eb/N0 versus BER. The outer coding is composed of a Reed-Solomon (204. The second one is the time TXtime necessary to complete the transmission (including the time the sender needs to receive the acknowledgement of complete transfer for rUDP or the FIN packet for TCP). due to the ratio of TCP typical packet size at MAC layer for data (1500 bytes) versus ACKs (80 bytes). The fixed packet structure is derived by the realtime requirement of MPEG2 Program Elementary Streams (PES) usually broadcasted over DVB-S. as shown in [11]. In Table 1 we present a summary of the efficiencies of TCP/IP communication over a classic DVB-S system. IP over DVB DVB-S system has been conceived and designed mainly to carry MPEG2 TV programs. EFFICIENCY SUMMARY OF THE DVB-S PROTOCOL STACK Layer TCP/IP MPE enc. an inner coding is performed by using a convolutional code. A. periodical ACK packets must be returned back to slide the transmission window and keep the bytes flow. The introduction of MPE encapsulation delivers an additional variable efficiency of PS/(PS+16).875 Fixed: 0.5 to 0.e. another decoding process is performed such that up to 8 bytes can be corrected in a 204 byte packet with the Reed-Solomon decoder. We considered the system to be equipped with a version of TCP that implements a delayed ACK [7]. The performance is evaluated according to two different metrics. The actual gross capacity (in terms of effective bitrate modulated on the physical channel) includes also the overhead of MPE encapsulation and MPEG-TS framing at layer 2.

assumed uniformly distributed during the relatively long connection. all the simulated results can be assumed realistic and close to a real scenario. Therefore. 3 the TCP transfer time graph obtained with NS2 and the Linux testbed (using confidence intervals referred to several connections).e. Finally. the third node is the receiver of the file. w. to offer a fair comparison against rUDP. In Fig. thus confirming the mathematical formulas presented in equation (1). so that the decoder knows how every received packet was generated. s) = (40000. NS2 setup rUDP and TCP based data transfer has been performed over the NS2 simulation platform. it also randomly drops packets in order to emulate a satellite link affected by a certain packet loss rate. (2) and the results obtained with NS2 simulations against the outputs coming from the Linux testbed for satellite emulation. 2 we show the comparison between the rUDP efficiency measured with NS2 and the one of a real transmission.999) and we grouped three symbols of 480 bytes per each UDP packet. 0. C. 5000) [1]. Bandwidth efficiency of rateless codes as a function of BER. for the evaluation of the efficiency and the transfer time of TCP. These values are also used for the real transmission performed on the Linux testbed. 2. As we can observe. For what concerns the TCP performance. thus resembling the satellite channel propagation model as in [20]. several simulations are performed to measure the average performance of several TCP and rUDP flows. since the rUDP application in NS2 has been setup using a theoretical model for rateless coding. The satellite terminal is connected by a DVB-S satellite link with a bandwidth of 2 Mbit/s with a certain BER value. the testbed is composed of three PCs connected in series with Ethernet cables. rUDP performances in NS2 are exactly matching equation (1) and (2). The filesize downloaded by the satellite terminal has been set to F=4 MB. . Figure 3. The first PC is the server. with transmission windows correctly set. It is in charge of delaying the packets of D=250ms (geostationary satellite physical delay) and controlling the rate. A client/server application has been specifically designed in ANSI C for the UDP data transmission of files of different sizes using rateless coding. we decided to simulate its behaviour on NS2. Comparison among the ideal case (no decoding inefficiency). analytical and real performance. For this analysis we adopted TCP Reno with a window size large enough to handle a large bandwidth delay product [19]. Transfer time of TCP Reno as a function of BER.3% that approximates the average behaviour of a SW LT code with SW parameters (k. In these simulations we assume that sender and receiver are synchronized. Data packets contain encoded symbols obtained by a LT encoding of the source data. it has been obtained with NS2 and then with the emulator platform too. because the selective retransmission of packets permits to only send again lost packets. Comparison between the behavior simulated in NS2 and the one obtained by using a Linux testbed. the sender side where the file to transfer is available. i. most of the TCP models either can not be used to obtain the values of interest [18]. validating the emulation platform too. the client.e. In addition. i. Linux testbed setup The same file transfer of size F has also been performed using a Linux based testbed.01. Additionally. The curves are normalized with a maximum efficiency of 1 and as function of BER. we show in Fig. In particular. We adopted a Robust Soliton Distribution [2] with parameters (c. the real performance of the adopted SW LT code is almost coincident to the simulation results. For each BER value.For what concerns equations for performances of TCP transfer. 10000. Figure 2. The efficiency of TCP transfer is very close to the ideal transmission case in Fig. We performed the transfer using different BERs. TCP used is the default for Linux. or they are too simplified [17] to be fairly and directly compared to (1) and (2). D. d) = (0. B. For the NS2 model we assumed an inefficiency of 5. performing the satellite emulation functions. In this way. as described below. The PC in the middle performs routing between two network subnets. Preliminary Results The first simulations and emulations have been performed to validate equation (1).

thus increasing the Figure 4. rUDP can offer a real advantage with its higher layer coding which. Transfer time (in seconds) as a function of the BER on the channel. so the efficiency can increase of some percent points further.g.g. using the curves reported in [11]. 3). A. presented in [13] and[16]) can be used. The use of rateless coding for data transmission is believed to be applicable also to the newer DVB-S2 standard [21]. . it is possible to notice how rUDP transfer times are always lower than TCP ones for the same file size. this parameter could also be of interest). Working with a FEC of 2/3 rUDP is comparable and even better than TCP because the overhead introduced by the rateless coding is compensated by the gain of the FEC reduction at the channel layer. With these conditions TCP will not perform optimally. in a common scale where 1 indicates the gross channel capacity. Results Taking into account the efficiency of the DVB-S channel at all layers. VI. in practice. These numbers show a clear increase in channel efficiency.57 if the FEC is 2/3. Comparison between TCP Reno and rUDP. further improving the proposed approach. but rUDP can be used successfully as we will present. In Fig. In particular. DVB-S2 is able to perform adaptive coding and modulation at lower layers using a dedicated return channel (used by terminals to notify channel conditions) at the cost of additional system complexity to handle the resource management process. without any kind of lower layer adaptations. rUDP shows a channel usage in the range of 50-53%.. delivers to each terminal (with its own BER condition) an amount of packets accordingly. without the need of adjusting the source coding case by case.43 for ideal transmission with a FEC of 1/2 and 0. as in DVBS. 5% for LT code shown in Fig. as in case of emergency.7 dB. In other words. TCP is able to reach optimal efficiency with the proper FEC. Using [11] the BER resulting in fact is about 3·10-6. In fact. We will not consider the data transfer time reduction as a key improvement (even if for some services. Comparison between TCP Reno and rUDP. more efficient rateless codes (e. in order to deliver effective benefits to most of the terminals [22]. Specifically when FEC is 1/2. because it is very slow to recover several losses in an environment with high RTT. delivers an Eb/N0 at the receiver of 3. the overall channel efficiency is 0. 5 we present the comparison between the transmission times of the two approaches. It is possible to see an effective transfer gain: at QEF conditions the channel usage is 43% with TCP. the BER can be lower.g. when the channel is good (e. rUDP performs a sort of adaptive coding at application layer.V. As first but representative study case. QEF conditions. which is a great advantage in a satellite environment. Secondly.. Figure 5. leading to performance improvement. Remarks It should be noted that rUDP has still margin to perform better in terms of channel efficiency gain for at least two reasons. B. Each of the two cases takes into account the respective channel efficiency. 9600 and 19200 MB. Bandwidth efficiency as a function of the BER on the channel. However. Rateless coding on the other hand can work with lower FEC. Lowering the FEC to 2/3 while considering the same Eb/N0 means to have greater packet losses. operating in QEF conditions. In this context. PROPOSED APPROACH The proposed approach for efficient rUDP data transfer aims to reduce the FEC used at lower layers in order to compensate for its decoding overhead (e. the use of two FEC commonly applied for convolutional coding of 1/2 and 2/3 will be considered. we measured that the TCP transfer time increases greatly with BER (Fig. CONCLUSION From the simulations and the tests performed we showed how rateless coding for data transfer over satellite is a feasible approach. 2). 4 the two cases for transmission using TCP with a FEC of 1/2 and rUDP with a FEC of 2/3 are shown in terms of transmission efficiency for several file data sizes of 4800. Only with these conditions TCP will transfer data files efficiently. Raptor codes. In Fig. while at 3·10-6. no rain).

“Performance enhancing proxies intended to mitigate link-related degradations”. A. 2007. Nov. whitepaper of University of Calgary. 2009] [7] R. USA. 2005. [12] NS2 Official Website. Shelby. M. Raptor codes. Both these aspects will be subject of future work. [8] ETSI. . M. Luglio for his support on the research activities and the coordination of the exchange program performed between UCLA and University of Rome Tor Vergata. channel coding and modulation for 11/12 GHz satellite services [4] Sat3play project page: http://telecom. Online codes. Future work can also include better tuning of the rateless coding used in the Linux-based testbed.cfm?fobjectid=2863 4 [last accessed on March 30.C. Byers. [20] Ippolito. 1986. 253. 2001. Collini-Noker. M. MPE. with the creation of an application to transfer files similar to FTP.Communication Layers". New York University. G. Gasiba. RFC 3135. “Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB). Specification for data broadcasting. J. Bogino. Nov 2002 [16] M. E. "Requirements for Internet Hosts . Mitzenmacher. Vol.’’ International J. J. A. Sanders and A. 3. Luby. DC. Grangetto.int/telecom/www/object/index. issue 4. International Workshop on Satellite and Space Communications (IWSSC). [24] SatLabs Interoperable PEP (I-PEP) Transport Extensions and Session Framework for Satellite Communications: “Air Interface Specification”. [21] ETSI EN 302 307. RFC 1122. T. June 15. C. FEC Performance of Concatenated Reed-Solomon and Convolutional Coding with Interleaving. M. Sep. since there is no need for individual retransmissions [26]. Rinaldo and R. “TCP/IP Illustrated. Second generation framing structure. 2000. Collini-Nocker.” Book on “Radiowave propagation in satellite ommunications”.available channel capacity at the cost of working below QEF conditions. Watson. W. Addison Wesley.edu/nsnam/ns/ [last accessed on March 30. 2005. Maymounkov. pp. Kojo. They are assumed also to be very convenient for data multicast. ‘‘Capacity analysis and system optimization for the forward link of multi-beam satellite broadband systems exploiting adaptive coding and modulation. Future work will investigate these aspects and will open the way for further study related to multicast and broadcast of multiple data flows using rateless coding versus fixed and adaptive FEC of DVB-S/S2 or LMS systems [27]. channel coding and modulation systems for Broadcasting. 22. Rateless codes can also be used for parallel data transfers. M. pp.4. Ed. VII. [9] G. and Z. Williamson “An Analytic Throughput Model for TCP NewReno”. Research Report TR2002-833. UDP based communication solutions which can be used in PEP connections (also commercial ones like XTP [25]) are difficult to model. Stockhammer. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank Prof. the data transfer time. pp: 56 – 67. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON) 2006 [14] M. P. [6] Satmode project page: http://telecom. Braden. obtaining a fair share of the resources.. [27] M. B. News Gathering and other broadband satellite applications” [22] R. on ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review. Louis J.pdf . B. Proceedings of the 43rd Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 19. ACM SIGCOMM. Luglio.1”. FUTURE WORK The use of Performace Enhanching Proxy (PEP) [23].isi. 1998. STD 3. de Gaudenzi. N. Magli.Jan. In this situation. 69-82. [25] R. October 1989.1. and ULE over DVB-S2.Cataldi. REFERENCES [1] M. M.ca/~mahanti/papers/newreno. Luby.esa. using TCP for the session and rUDP for the data transfer. Griner. Additionally. R. Lei. 2003. such as the I-PEP [24]. Xu. Shokrollahi. May/June 2004. Proc. Mahanti and C. “Impact of Fade and non-Fade Duration for different Elevation Angles on Time Correlation Characterization for Land Mobile Satellite Systems”. Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB).O. Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) for transmission of IP datagrams over an MPEG-2 Transport Stream (TS). IETF RFC 4326. Weaver. Interactive Services.A: Vàzzquez Castro. “A stochastic model of TCP/IP with stationary random losses”.4. [26] D. Luby. is always lesser when rUDP is adopted. 2. IETF. Barakat. Computer Communications Review. 401--423. Salzburg. vol. 1994. Networking. Satellite Commun. [11] Jeff Foerster and John Liebetreu. Ramilli. Parvez. Jr.cfm?fobjectid=1184 3 [last accessed on March 30. SlidingWindow Digital Fountain Codes for Streaming of Multimedia Contents. Border. Jun 2000. Raptor Codes for Reliable Download Delivery in Wireless Broadcast Systems. [23] J. 2009] [5] ETSI EN 301 790 (V1.16 Broadband Wireless Access WG technical paper. vol 28. 1st edition ISBN: 9780521642989. Inference. the use of rUDP resulted in an increment of the overall channel efficiency of 7-10%. Olmo. [10] A. Analytical and Experimental IP Encapsulation of GSE. 2009] [13] A.. Framing structure. Dec. M. Montenegro. Space Communications. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. of IEEE CCNC 2006 [17] E. Oct. Stevens. Vieira. 1990.model. M.esa. pp 231242. EN 301 192 v1. Cambridge University Press. Vol. http://www. Altman. Mayer. New York. “The Xpress Transfer Protocol (XTP) – A Tutorial”. no. “Information Theory. [18] N. has not been addressed yet at this stage of the work. Fairhurst. 2007 [19] W. IEEE Computer Society Washington. [3] ETS 300 421.cpsc. Rege “A digital fountain approach to reliable distribution of bulk data”. W. T. and Learning Algorithms”. Interaction Channel for Satellite Distribution Systems.ucalgary. ISBN: 978-0201633467. LT codes. A secondary performance parameter. 2004. IEEE ISCAS 2007 [15] P. 2002. G. p. IEEE802. “Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB). March 2006. F. 2002 [2] J.int/telecom/www/object/index.K Avrachenkov and C. MacKay. http://pages.1).

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful