1 1. 2 An Evaluation of Protocols for UAV Science Applications William D. Ivancic NASA Glenn Research Center David E. Stewart Verizon Federal Systems.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 110 Minute Loop of 18 Slides. 2 Real-Time and Store-and-Forward Delivery of Unmanned Airborne Vehicle Sensor Data PI: Will Ivancic/GRC Co-PI: Don Sullivan/ARC.
Advertisements

CCNA – Network Fundamentals
Chapter 7: Transport Layer
© 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.ICND1 v1.0—1-1 Building a Simple Network Understanding the TCP/IP Transport Layer.
TRANSPORT LAYER  Session multiplexing  Segmentation  Flow control (TCP)  Connection-oriented (TCP)  Reliability (TCP)
1 End to End Bandwidth Estimation in TCP to improve Wireless Link Utilization S. Mascolo, A.Grieco, G.Pau, M.Gerla, C.Casetti Presented by Abhijit Pandey.
Copyright 1999, S.D. Personick. All Rights Reserved. Telecommunications Networking II Lecture 32 Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Ref: Tanenbaum pp:
Xiphos.ca Charlie Younghusband XipLink Product Manager Xiphos Technologies Xiphos’ Work with SCPS-TP & applications and interest in CisLunar Introducing.
ISS Institutional DTN Overview for CCSDS
Prentice HallHigh Performance TCP/IP Networking, Hassan-Jain Chapter 10 TCP/IP Performance over Asymmetric Networks.
Data and Computer Communications Eighth Edition by William Stallings Lecture slides by Lawrie Brown Chapter 2 – Protocol Architecture, TCP/IP, and Internet-Based.
© 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco Public 1 Version 4.0 OSI Transport Layer Network Fundamentals – Chapter 4.
IP –Based SAN extensions and Performance Thao Pham CS 622 Fall 07.
IETF WG Presentation1 Beth Johnson TCP over Satellite (tcpsat)
CS 268: Wireless Transport Protocols Kevin Lai Feb 13, 2002.
1 © 2003, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. CCNA 1 v3.0 Module 11 TCP/IP Transport and Application Layers.
Department of Electronic Engineering City University of Hong Kong EE3900 Computer Networks Transport Protocols Slide 1 Transport Protocols.
Reliable Transport Layers in Wireless Networks Mark Perillo Electrical and Computer Engineering.
1 A Comparison of Mechanisms for Improving TCP Performance over Wireless Links Course : CS898T Instructor : Dr.Chang - Swapna Sunkara.
Gursharan Singh Tatla Transport Layer 16-May
Connecting Networks © 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Exploring How TCP/IP Works INTRO v2.0—4-1.
Lecture slides prepared for “Business Data Communications”, 7/e, by William Stallings and Tom Case, Chapter 8 “TCP/IP”.
Lecture 1, 1Spring 2003, COM1337/3501Computer Communication Networks Rajmohan Rajaraman COM1337/3501 Textbook: Computer Networks: A Systems Approach, L.
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R 1 The Trade Between CCSDS and HDLC Framing on Global Precipitation Measurement David Everett and Jonathan.
Lect3..ppt - 09/12/04 CIS 4100 Systems Performance and Evaluation Lecture 3 by Zornitza Genova Prodanoff.
Chapter 4. After completion of this chapter, you should be able to: Explain “what is the Internet? And how we connect to the Internet using an ISP. Explain.
CCNA 1 v3.0 Module 11 TCP/IP Transport and Application Layers.
Experiences in Design and Implementation of a High Performance Transport Protocol Yunhong Gu, Xinwei Hong, and Robert L. Grossman National Center for Data.
Copyright 2003 CCNA 1 Chapter 9 TCP/IP Transport and Application Layers By Your Name.
Jaringan Komputer Dasar OSI Transport Layer Aurelio Rahmadian.
© 2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 Chapter 7: Transport Layer Introduction to Networking.
IEEE Globecom 2010 – December , 2010 Implementation of DTN for Large File Transfers from Low Earth Orbiting Satellite Will Ivancic NASA Glenn Research.
Introduction to Networks CS587x Lecture 1 Department of Computer Science Iowa State University.
Space-Based Network Centric Operations Research. Secure Autonomous Integrated Controller for Distributed Sensor Webs Objective Develop architectures and.
Paper Group: 12 Data Transport in Challenged Networks Above papers are original works of respective authors, referenced here for academic purposes only.
June 2004 SIW-4 - IP in Space Implementation Guide 1 Handbook for Using IP Protocols for Space Missions James Rash - NASA/GSFC Keith Hogie, Ed Criscuolo,
Page No. 1 Kelvin Nichols Payload Operations and Integration Center EO50 Delay Tolerant Networking (DTN) Implementation on the International Space Station.
Copyright 2002, S.D. Personick. All Rights Reserved.1 Telecommunications Networking II Topic 20 Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Ref: Tanenbaum pp:
Final Version Micro-Arcsecond Imaging Mission, Pathfinder (MAXIM-PF) Mission Operations Tim Rykowski Jeffrey Hosler May 13-17, 2002.
Transport Layer Moving Segments. Transport Layer Protocols Provide a logical communication link between processes running on different hosts as if directly.
Transport over Wireless Networks Myungchul Kim
1 © 2003, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. CCNA 1 v3.0 Module 11 TCP/IP Transport and Application Layers.
CCNA 1 v3.0 Module 11 TCP/IP Transport and Application Layers.
TCP/IP Honolulu Community College Cisco Academy Training Center Semester 2 Version 2.1.
HighSpeed TCP for High Bandwidth-Delay Product Networks Raj Kettimuthu.
Transport Layer COM211 Communications and Networks CDA College Theodoros Christophides
DTN Network Management Scenarios and General Requirements Will Ivancic
LOS Downlink Systems Both systems are base upon commercial of the shelf technology.  900 MHz System based upon Freewave Technologies equipment.  2.4.
Networking Fundamentals. Basics Network – collection of nodes and links that cooperate for communication Nodes – computer systems –Internal (routers,
Networking Basics CCNA 1 Chapter 11.
1 Space-Based IP Testing Using COTS Equipment Will Ivancic - NASA GRC Terry Bell - Lockheed Martin Global Telecommunications Dan Shell - Cisco System.
Internet multimedia: simplest approach audio, video not streamed: r no, “pipelining,” long delays until playout! r audio or video stored in file r files.
1 Transport Protocols Relates to Lab 5. An overview of the transport protocols of the TCP/IP protocol suite. Also, a short discussion of UDP.
Improving TCP Performance over Wireless Networks
BASIC NETWORK PROTOCOLS AND THEIR FUNCTIONS Created by: Ghadeer H. Abosaeed June 23,2012.
1 Version 3.1 Module 10 Intermediate TCP/IP (Layer 4)
Glenn Research Center Satellite Networks & Architectures Branch Communications Technology Division IEEE Aerospace Conference March Architecture.
© Janice Regan, CMPT 128, CMPT 371 Data Communications and Networking Congestion Control 0.
Reliable Adaptive Lightweight Multicast Protocol Ken Tang, Scalable Network Technologies Katia Obraczka, UC Santa Cruz Sung-Ju Lee, Hewlett-Packard Laboratories.
Glenn Research Center Satellite Networks & Architectures Branch Communications Technology Division SpaceOps2002, October 9-12, SCPS-TP, TCP and.
1 Ad-hoc Transport Layer Protocol (ATCP) EECS 4215.
Reliability further points for discussion prepared for discussion at the IRTF Delay-Tolerant Networking session IETF 73, Minneapolis, November draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-checksum.
Application – Transport – Network
The Transport Layer Implementation Services Functions Protocols
Satellite TCP Lecture 19 04/10/02.
Transport Layer Unit 5.
MPTCP channel combining for Airborne Flight Research
PI: Will Ivancic/GRC Co-PI: Don Sullivan/ARC
Chapter 15. Satellite Services and the Internet
Presentation transcript:

1 1

2 An Evaluation of Protocols for UAV Science Applications William D. Ivancic NASA Glenn Research Center David E. Stewart Verizon Federal Systems Donald V. Sullivan Patrick E. Finch NASA Ames Research Center

3 COMMUNICATIONS ARCHITECTURES

4 Security NASA’s Global Hawks command and control communications is completely separate from the experimental payloads’ command and control. –Enables different security methodologies to be deployed for each system –The security required for payload operations becomes much less stringent Enables greater flexibility of payload deployment Enables direct real-time access to payload instrumentation by the various principle investigators. Payload Security –Currently User access accounts and Secure Shell (SSH) –Currently no requirement for Internet Protocol Security (IPsec) between the ground control and aircraft payload as this is a private link.

5 Satellite Communications Characteristics KU-Band satellite communications –2 to 8 Mbps bidirectional links –Modems capable of 50 Mbps (but cost prohibitive) –Connectivity demonstrated to 75 degrees latititude Near Error Free Link Approximately 600 msec round trip times (RTT) –Includes satellite link delay, ground delay and processing.

6 Current Communication Architecture Global Hawk ground station is located at Dryden as are the Principle Investigators –No multi-hop store and forward. –Single control loop –Delay is up to 600 msec round trip time due to Geostationary Satellite delay. NASA Dryden Control Loop NASA Dryden

7 Venture Mission (Atlantic Campaign) Global Hawk ground station is located at near mission and PIs are collocated near ground station. –No multi-hop store and forward or network mobility. –Delay is up to 600 msec round trip time due to Geostationary Satellite delay. –Single control loop Collocated PIs Control Loop New Transportable Ground Station (e.g. Wallops)

8 Future Deployment Possibilities Aircraft Operators and Principle Investigators located at Dryden or remote –Some PIs with payload Ground Station at Remote Location –Simple two-stage store and forward. –No need for special store and forward protocol NASA Dryden Control Loop Transportable Ground Station (Remote Location)

9 Collocated PIs Pros –Eases coordination between PIs as well as between PIs and aircraft controllers –Ensures commitment –Builds teams and teamwork –Cross pollination of ideas –Collocated with Global Hawk ground base provides access to payload for pre-flight checkout. But, that probably does not have to be everybody and probably does not have to be at the ground station. Cons –Travel time –Travel costs –Away from home The technology exists to allow Principle Investigators to operate from remote locations.

10 Protocol Requirements Provide a good user experience –Get the required science data down in a timely manner –Ease of use and maximum delivery of science data Remain as indistinguishable as possible from existing Internet protocols. –Allows the scientists to test their instruments and data collecting in the lab, on the ground, and in flight using the same protocols, commands, and scripts. –Currently used Protocols Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) based protocols –Telnet, Secure Shell (SSH), and file transfer protocols (i.e. File Transfer Protocol (FTP), Secure Copy Protocol (SCP), Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFTP), Remote Synchronization (RSYNC)

11 Research Requirements Lightning Instrumentation Package (LIP) –Measures lightning, electric fields, electric field changes, and air conductivity. –The data throughput requirement is kbps High Altitude MMIC Sounding Radiometer (HAMSR) –Provides measurements that can be used to infer the 3-D distribution of temperature, water vapor, and cloud liquid water in the atmosphere. –Data requirements are approximately 200 Mbytes over duration of mission (24 hours) with instantaneous throughputs of 10s to 100s of kbps. –Current system uses RSYNC over TCP to synchronize the ground database with payload database High-Altitude Imaging Wind and Rain Airborne Profiler (HIWRAP) –HIWRAP is able to image winds by measuring volume backscattering from clouds and precipitation. –Data requirements for GRIP was approximately 1 Gigabyte per minute (approximately 130 Mbps) which vastly exceed available link rate. By deploying such onboard processing on future flights, the data-rate should be reduced by a factor of about 15, or 66 MB per minute (8.8 Mbps link requirement). Using FPGA-based processing, Quicklook products such as images would be produced that would greatly reduce the data downlink requirements to well within the current bandwidth of the Ku-band communication system. –Operators currently use telnet or SSH to check payload status. Data is distributed once the Global Hawk returns (see Saratoga Transport Protocol)

12 TCP Operation vs. UDP Rate-base Operation 12 TCP congestion avoidance mode (Linear Increase) time t transfer rate Mbps channel errors leads to packet losses and resends TCP slow start mode TCP TCP assumes loss indicates congestion and slows its rate (Fast Recovery) Protocol Header Overheads link rate C UDP Rate-Based C TCP self-induced congestion

13 Theoretical Throughput of TCP vs. Rate- Based Protocols for 1024 byte packets

14 UDP-base Transport Protocols Operate at line-rate or at some set rate-limit. Generally assume no congestion and thus deploy no congestion control algorithms. –No need to probe the system to determine available bandwidth or to reduce data-rates when losses occur as all losses are assumed to be due to errors rather than congestion. UDP-based transport protocols utilize a negative acknowledgement algorithm (NACK) for transport reliability UDP-based transport protocols –Saratoga Initially Developed by Surrey Satellite Technology Limited for reliable, efficient image transmission from space to ground Plans for use to transport massive radio astronomy data sets (Terabyte per day) generated in the Australian Square Kilometer Array Pathfinder (ASKAP) –Negative Acknowledgement (NACK) - Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Initially developed by the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) –Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) File Delivery Protocol (CFDP). Developed for Space Communication Very heavy state maintenance – necessary to suspend timers A mix of application, transport protocols, and data-link –Licklider Transmission Protocol (LTP) Origins are CFDP with the intent to implement layering (heavy state maintenance) Target use is Space Communications

15 Control Loop 1 Control Loop 3 Control Loop 2 End-to-End Control Loop PEPs Payload Control Principal Investigator Protocol Enhancing Proxies (PEPs) Used to improve TCP performance over long delays. Break the end-to-end control loop into multiple control loops such that one can utilize a protocol that performs well over long-delay, error prone links without modifications to the end users system (protocols). PEPs have known problems. –Require a reasonable amount of additional processing, –Often require special configuration and tuning –Must see TCP packets so IPsec is problematic Note: PEPs will not help interactive communications, as PEPs cannot remove the propagation delay.

16 Conclusions GloPac and GRIP missions –Principle Investigators using standard Internet protocols with no PEPs deployed. –The user experience was positive even without PEPs. –Larger file transfers for GRIP and GloPac were performed in the background using RSYNC for remote synchronization. As such, any TCP inefficiencies were not apparent to the user. Future deployments –Real-time delivery of larger data will be required and efficient use of the communication links will be necessary –Either PEPs or an efficient, rate-based protocol such as Saratoga or both will be installed depending on the performance needs are architectural deployment. PEP Performance is currently under investigation –Use of only a rate-based protocol is preferred over deployment of PEPs in order to keep the communication system as simple as possible. –Possible use of the Saratoga transport protocol to move large data sets (such as those generated by High-Altitude Imaging Wind and Rain Airborne Profiler) ground-to-ground once the Global Hawk lands.