From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "David P. Reed" <dpreed@deepplum.com>,
Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>,
bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Ajit Pai caves to SpaceX but is still skeptical of Musk's latency claims
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 22:43:17 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006122155150.16262@qynat-yncgbc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <12673.1591976376@localhost>
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 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.
realistically, the vast majority of the people who have the mobile endpoints are
going to be talking to standard websites and services, and those are going to be
on the Internet, not on starlink nodes.
'normal' traffic is highly asymmetric, but the radio links do not seem to be, so
you can have a lot of mobile units talking to the Internet on a smallish number
of downlinks without having a bottleneck in the 'upstream' direction from the
mobile units.
it's the replies that are far more likely to be a problem (the 'downlink'
direction as far as the user is concerned), but they don't have to do anything
super special there, if they just turn on fq_codel on the uplink routers between
the Internet and the satellites, it will do a good job of managing that link.
Is it possible to saturate that and run into grief? sure. It's possible to
oversubscribe any service. But it's also possible to run a service without
oversubscribing it.
> 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.
I expect that it will be more dynamic than that. given that there could be
mobile stations anywhere, creating virtual satellites is going to be a poor
choice for many locations. I expect it will be something along the lines of each
satellite has a ongoing broadcast of how busy it is and the ground stations send
based on this.
do I expect them to get it right immediately? no.
but SpaceX has a need for good communication in odd areas (like their recovery
ships and their spacecraft), so when they do run into grief, I expect them to
fix the problem fairly quickly, not pretend it isn't there.
Remember, Musk already sacked the starlink leadership once for being to stuck in
'the way satellites are always built' so if it doesn't work well under load and
they can't fix it, he will find people who can.
David Lang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-13 5:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-11 16:03 David P. Reed
2020-06-11 16:14 ` Jonathan Morton
2020-06-11 18:46 ` David P. Reed
2020-06-11 18:56 ` David Lang
2020-06-11 19:16 ` David P. Reed
2020-06-11 19:28 ` David Lang
2020-06-12 15:39 ` Michael Richardson
2020-06-13 5:43 ` David Lang [this message]
2020-06-13 18:41 ` David P. Reed
2020-06-14 0:03 ` David Lang
2020-06-14 0:36 ` Michael Richardson
2020-06-14 1:17 ` David Lang
2020-06-14 15:40 ` David P. Reed
2020-06-14 15:57 ` Michael Richardson
2020-06-14 21:04 ` David P. Reed
2020-06-14 23:13 ` Michael Richardson
2020-06-12 15:30 ` Michael Richardson
2020-06-12 19:50 ` David P. Reed
2020-06-13 21:15 ` Michael Richardson
2020-06-13 23:02 ` Jonathan Morton
2020-06-14 0:06 ` David Lang
2020-06-14 11:23 ` Roland Bless
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/bloat.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006122155150.16262@qynat-yncgbc \
--to=david@lang.hm \
--cc=bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=chromatix99@gmail.com \
--cc=dpreed@deepplum.com \
--cc=mcr@sandelman.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox