[Starlink] VPN woes, recommendations?

[Nathan Owens]

Yes, you can run a business (HP) dish without the router, it comes with an
Ethernet cable. You can put a static route to 192.168.100.1 and still get
the stats/app.

You can also request a static IP.


On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 8:39 AM Adam Thompson via Starlink <
starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> Sorry, forgot to answer the first part: yes, absent the tunnel, we get
> ~200/8 consistently, occasionally bursting higher.
> -Adam
>
>
> Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Daniel C. Eckert <eckertd at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2023 10:36:24 AM
> *To:* Adam Thompson <athompson at merlin.mb.ca>
> *Cc:* starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net <starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [Starlink] VPN woes, recommendations?
>
> Interesting scenario.  This reply only addresses a small part of your
> message:  While I see you've done the math and checked the specs for the
> Aruba devices -- have you already conducted a few non-VPN tests between
> direct-wire-connected laptops/devices at those two locations to know what
> "baseline" bandwidth you're starting from when considering the max
> potential bandwidth for the encrypted traffic?  For example, since you're
> on a business plan, you should have a direct public IP to target with iperf
> traffic from either end, even if not encrypted.
>
> Dan
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:30 AM Adam Thompson via Starlink <
> starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> Hi, all.
> We've been trying to develop a plug-and-play L2 VPN over Starlink, using
> Aruba Hospitality-series Remote APs like their RAP-505H.
> It's not going great, and I'm wondering about several Starlink-specific
> issues.
>
> First, having multiple devices in serial is generally not a great idea for
> reliability.  Can we realistically plug our remote AP directly into the
> dish, still?  (This is using Starlink Business, FWIW.). I know we lose
> access to the Starlink app, but we also lose a NATing router and an
> unwanted wifi AP, so that's probably a net zero.  I just don't know what
> other dangers/problems that topology might cause.
>
> Secondly, we're only able to push about 30Mbps through the (magical
> Aruba-proprietary GRE+IPsec) tunnel.  The bandwidth-delay equations suggest
> we should be seeing around 100Mbps, not 30.  (The Aruba devices are rated
> for ~2Gbps encrypted at the site end, and ~7Gbps at the head end, so
> presumably that's not the bottleneck.)
>
> So:
> * does anyone have corroborating *or* contradicting evidence of VPN
> performance over Starlink's particular flavor of Long Fat Pipe, and
> * does anyone have any positive (or negative, I guess!) recommendations
> for cloud-managed VPN devices that can do at least 100M and magically work
> from behind double-NAT/CGNAT like we see with Starlink?  Bonus points if it
> does L2 tunnels or can run a dynamic routing protocol.
> * Other comments or suggestions welcome, too.
>
> Thanks,
> -Adam
>
> Get Outlook for Android
> <https://streaklinks.com/BZdCYXLz80mmcz4jWATVEg7r/https%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2FAAb9ysg>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
> ᐧ
> ᐧ
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/20230217/81137a0d/attachment.html>