Advertisement

Analysis of the Block Segmentation Method of the Licklider Transmission Protocol

  • Ricardo LentEmail author
Conference paper
  • 66 Downloads
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1231)

Abstract

Space communications are continuously challenged by extreme conditions that include large propagation delays, intermittent connectivity, and random losses. To combat these problems, the Licklider Transmission Protocol (LTP) splits data blocks into small segments that are radiated independently and retransmitted as needed, through a process that can be paused during long link disruptions. Given the extreme delays involved, the end performance of this protocol is driven by the number of transmission rounds needed to successfully deliver each block. LTP links are defined as overlays with one or more physical channels in the underlay, therefore with sections that may be on different administrative domains and experiencing different conditions. The question of how to select the length of the segments has received negligible attention and the use of improper values can easily lead to suboptimal performance. The segmentation process used by LTP is examined in this paper to determine the role that segmentation parameters and the conditions of the underlay have on the block delivery times. This goal is achieved through the definition of a basic model of LTP’s transmission process that allows deriving the optimal segmentation parameter. Simulation results provide additional evidence of LTP’s performance contrasting the results of the optimal segment length with fixed-length segments. The results provide a theoretical performance reference for practical parameter optimization methods.

Keywords

Delay tolerant networks Deep space communications Satellites Licklider Transmission Protocol Protocol optimization 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank Gilbert Clark at NASA Glenn Research Center for his useful comments on this research. This work was supported by an Early Career Faculty grant from NASA’s Space Technology Research Grants Program.

References

  1. 1.
    The Interplanetary Overlay Network (ION) software distribution: ION-DTN. https://sourceforge.net/projects/ion-dtn. Accessed 01 Apr 2018
  2. 2.
    Basagni, S., Petrioli, C., Petroccia, R., Stojanovic, M.: Optimized packet size selection in underwater wireless sensor network communications. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 37, 321–337 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bisio, I., Marchese, M.: Analytical expression and performance evaluation of TCP packet loss probability over geostationary satellite. IEEE Commun. Lett. 8(4), 232–234 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caini, C., Cornice, P., Firrincieli, R., Livini, M., Lacamera, D.: Analysis of TCP and DTN retransmission algorithms in presence of channel disruptions. In: 2009 First International Conference on Advances in Satellite and Space Communications, pp. 174–179, July 2009Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang, R., Burleigh, S.C., Parikh, P., Lin, C.J., Sun, B.: Licklider Transmission Protocol (LTP)-based DTN for cislunar communications. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 19(2), 359–368 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TNET.2010.2060733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang, D.: Performance of Licklider Transmission Protocol (LTP) in LEO-satellite communications with link disruptions. In: 2016 IEEE 15th International Conference on Cognitive Informatics Cognitive Computing (ICCI*CC), pp. 154–159, August 2016Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang, R., Reshamwala, A., Zhang, Q., Zhang, Z., Guo, Q., Yang, M.: The effect of “window size” on throughput performance of DTN in lossy cislunar communications. In: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), pp. 68–72, June 2012Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bezirgiannidis, N., Burleigh, S., Tsaoussidis, V.: Delivery time estimation for space bundles. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 49(3), 1897–1910 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wei, Z., Wang, R., Zhang, Q., Hou, J.: Aggregation of DTN bundles for channel asymmetric space communications. In: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), pp. 5205–5209, June 2012Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang, R., Modi, B., Zhang, Q., Hou, J., Guo, Q., Yang, M.: Use of a hybrid of DTN convergence layer adapters (CLAs) in interplanetary Internet. In: ICC, pp. 3296–3300. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang, R., Wu, X., Wang, T., Liu, X., Zhou, L.: TCP convergence layer-based operation of DTN for long-delay cislunar communications. IEEE Syst. J. 4(3), 385–395 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Farrell, S., Cahill, V.: Evaluating ltp-t: a DTN-friendly transport protocol. In: 2007 International Workshop on Satellite and Space Communications, pp. 178–181, September 2007Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alessi, N., Burleigh, S.C., Caini, C., de Cola, T.: LTP robustness enhancements to cope with high losses on space channels. In: 8th Advanced Satellite Multimedia Systems Conference and the 14th Signal Processing for Space Communications Workshop, ASMS/SPSC 2016, Palma de Mallorca, Spain, 5–7 September 2016, pp. 1–6 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Iannicca, D., Hylton, A., Ishac, J.: A performance evaluation of NACK-oriented protocols as the foundation of reliable Delay-Tolerant Networking convergence layers. NASA technical memorandum (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shi, L., et al.: Integration of reed-solomon codes to Licklider Transmission Protocol (LTP) for space DTN. IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag. 32(4), 48–55 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bezirgiannidis, N., Tsaoussidis, V.: Packet size and DTN transport service: evaluation on a DTN testbed. In: International Congress on Ultra Modern Telecommunications and Control Systems, pp. 1198–1205, October 2010Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carek, D.A.: Packet-based protocol efficiency for wireless communications. JACIC 2, 238–251 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Korhonen, J., Wang, Y.: Effect of packet size on loss rate and delay in wireless links. In: IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, WCNC, vol. 3, pp. 1608–1613, April 2005Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lu, H., Jiang, F., Wu, J., Chen, C.W.: Performance improvement in DTNs by packet size optimization. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 51(4), 2987–3000 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lent, R.: A cognitive networking technique for LTP segmentation. In: The International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference, June 2020Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burleigh, S., Ramadas, M., Farrell, S.: Licklider Transmission Protocol - motivation. RFC 5325, RFC Editor, September 2008Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ramadas, M., Burleigh, S., Farrell, S.: Licklider Transmission Protocol - specification. RFC 5326, RFC Editor, September 2008Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Farrell, S., Ramadas, M., Burleigh, S.: Licklider Transmission Protocol - security extensions. RFC 5327, RFC Editor, September 2008Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lent, R.: Regulating the block loss ratio of the Licklider Transmission Protocol. In: 2018 IEEE 23rd International Workshop on Computer Aided Modeling and Design of Communication Links and Networks (CAMAD), pp. 1–6, September 2018Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lent, R.: Analysis of bundle throughput over LTP. In: 2018 IEEE 43rd Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN). pp. 271–274 (October 2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HoustonHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations