From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lang.hm (unknown [66.167.227.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BED83B29D for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 14:56:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dlang-laptop.LAN (dlang-laptop.LAN [10.2.0.162]) by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DBC0BA777; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:56:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:56:43 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@dlang-laptop To: "David P. Reed" cc: Jonathan Morton , bloat In-Reply-To: <1591901205.85717618@apps.rackspace.com> Message-ID: References: <1591891396.41838464@apps.rackspace.com> <1591901205.85717618@apps.rackspace.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.1 (DEB 209 2017-03-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="===============1059533046846746053==" Subject: Re: [Bloat] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Ajit Pai caves to SpaceX but is still skeptical of Musk's latency claims 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: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 18:56:44 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --===============1059533046846746053== Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 11 Jun 2020, David P. Reed wrote: > But I doubt that is where they are going. Instead, I suspect they haven't > thought about anything other than a packet at a time, with no thought to > reporting congestion by drops or ECN. > > And it's super easy to build up seconds of lag on TCP if you don't signal > congestion. TCP just keeps opening its window, happy as a clam. I expect that the bottleneck is going to be in the connection to the Internet. starlink station to starlink station is one issue starlink station to Internet is a different issue. given the download heavy nature of most use, the biggest bottleneck is probably going to be at their internet connected uplink stations (which I do not expect to be the consumer stations connected to the internet, but something different) as for the station to station communications, as I understand it, each satellite has 4-5 sattelite-satellite connections with one upload/download connection, so it's going to depend how many satellite hops the packet has to take, but there's a really good chance that there will be excess bandwidth available in the sattelite mesh and it will not be the bottleneck. We will see, but since the answer to satellite-satellite communication being the bottleneck is to launch more satellites, this boils down to investment vs service quality. Since they are making a big deal about the latency, I expect them to work to keep it acceptable. David Lang --===============1059533046846746053== Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 Content-ID: Content-Description: Content-Disposition: INLINE X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KQmxvYXQgbWFp bGluZyBsaXN0CkJsb2F0QGxpc3RzLmJ1ZmZlcmJsb2F0Lm5ldApodHRwczovL2xpc3RzLmJ1ZmZl cmJsb2F0Lm5ldC9saXN0aW5mby9ibG9hdAo= --===============1059533046846746053==--