David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
    > my point is that the if the satellite links are not the bottleneck, no
    > queuing will happen there.

It's a mesh of satellites.

If you build it into a DODAG (RFC6550 would work well), then you will either
a bottleneck at the top of tree (where the downlink to the DC is), or you
will have significant under utilitization at the edges, which might encourage
them to buffer.

Now, the satellites are always moving, so which satellite is next to the DC
will change, and this quite possibly could be exploited such that it's
always a different buffer that you bloat, so the accumulated backlog that
David P spoke about in his message might get to drain.

But, the right way to use this mesh is, in my opinion, to have a lot of
downlinks, and ideally, to do as much e2e connection as possible.
Don't connect *to* the Internet, *become* an Internet.
That is, routing in the satellite mesh, not just creation of circuits to DCs.

Anything less, and it's just a faster Iridium.

    > I expect the queuing to happen at the internet-satellite gateways, which is
    > much more conventional software and if they do something sane at the gateways
    > it will address the problem for pretty much everyone. They don't have to
    > implement anything special on the satellites.

    > and if he is promising good latency, but there isn't good latency, it isn't
    > going to be swept under the rug the way incumbant ISPs were able to.

I would expect to use SDN to create virtual satellites which appear to be
"stationary", and then do routing on top of that.

--
]               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    [