From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB7FD3BA8E; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 02:50:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 50979B0; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 08:50:10 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1513583410; bh=flJRGrmif40DrvwWiTIAQPRfOd2yFKuMLs72kRSA9Hw=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=yce1ljiRr1muyhG+LXju6RU9kArY3yRyx0w5qrPhh1/BFLfM4d3VtbGjiV0O+fKMt VRY90wbRAdpQ1cAa3brDC5kYFzl6HDgW3Uog8aagnL1DVOqZpT3S76XmCUNHbDShI1 m4ezpbwfnhon+psAMEa+GXMPUhEtYfJJduZrp75A= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E5469F; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 08:50:10 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 08:50:10 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Matthias Tafelmeier cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , bloat In-Reply-To: <1ee44b12-1247-1830-0388-63a4c74fb6d2@gmx.net> Message-ID: References: <87bmjff7l6.fsf_-_@nemesis.taht.net> <1512417597.091724124@apps.rackspace.com> <87wp1rbxo8.fsf@nemesis.taht.net> <1ee44b12-1247-1830-0388-63a4c74fb6d2@gmx.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Cerowrt-devel] DC behaviors today X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 07:50:11 -0000 On Sun, 17 Dec 2017, Matthias Tafelmeier wrote: > What I actually wanted to posit in relation to that is that one could > get sooner a c-cabable backbone sibling by marrying two ideas: the > airborne concept ongoing as outlined plus what NASA is planning to bring > about for the space backbone, e.g [1][2]. It's laser based instead of > directed radio-wave only. Sure, both is in the speed range of c, > apparantely, laser transmission has in addition a significantly higher > bandwidth to offer. "10 to 100 times as much data at a time as > radio-frequency systems"[3]. Attenuations to photons in clean > atmospheric air are neglible (few mps - refractive index of about > 1.0003), so actually a neglible slowdown - easily competing with top > notch fibres (99.7% the vacuum speed of light). Sure, that's the ideal > case, though, if cleverly done from the procurement of platforms and > overall system steering perspective, might feasible. Todays laser links are in the few km per hop range, with is easily at least one magnitude shorter than radio based equivalents. I don't know the physics behind it, but people who have better insight than I do tell me "it's hard" to run longer hops (if one wants any kind of high bitrate). -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se