[Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of Satellites and Terrestial Networks

Tue Sep 19 10:36:39 EDT 2023

On Tue, 19 Sep 2023, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:

> Le 19/09/2023 à 02:36, Hesham ElBakoury a écrit :
> [...]
>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023, 5:31 PM David Lang <david at lang.hm
> [...]
>
>> Starlink is just another IP path,
>
> Yes.
>
> For IPv6 it might not be that simple.  There can be things suggested to
> starlink to implement, such as to make it better from an IPv6
> standpoint.  That includes, and is not limited to, this /64 aspect.
>
> For IP in general (be it IPv4 or IPv6), as long as starlink stays
> closed, there might be no interest to suggest anything about IP that
> they have not already thought of.

Personally, I think that it's more a situation that they are doing something 
that nobody else has done (at least on anything close to this scale) so they are 
scrambling to make it work and finding things that the rest of us are just 
speculating about.

> IF on the other hand, starlink feels a need to interoperate, then we can
> discuss.

interoperate with what is the question.

Interoperate with other ground stations?

include other companies satellites in their space based routing?

Right now there isn't a lot in the way of other space based routing for them to 
possibly be interoperable with, and other systems have been actively hostile to 
Starlink (I don't know if it's mutual or not, I don't see everything, but the 
news I've heard has been primarily other companies trying to use regulations to 
block Starlink, not a basis for cooperation)

I also think that it's a bit early to push for standardization of the links. We 
don't have enough experience to know what really works on this sort of scale and 
dynamic connection environment.

> It is possible that starlink does not feel any need to interoperate now.
> At that point, the need to interoperate might come as a mandate from
> some outside factors.  Such factors could be the public-private
> cooperations.  Other factors could be partnerships that appear when some
> organisations feel the need to cooperate.  I will not speculate when,
> but it happens.
>
> Assuming that such openness appears, with a need to interoperate, then
> there certainly will be perspective developped where Starlink is not
> just another IP path.
>
>> all the tools that you use with any other ISP work on that path (or
>> are restricted like many other consumer ISPs with dynamic addressing,
>> no inbound connections, no BGP peering, etc. No reason that the those
>> couldn't work, SpaceX just opts not to support them on consumer
>> dishes)
>
> But, these other ISPs (not Starlink) are all standardized.

they are now, but they have not been in the past, and nothing prevents a 
networking vendor from introducing new proprietary things that only work on 
their equipment and are (hopefully) transparent to users. We actually see this 
with caching, 'wan accelerators', captive portals, etc

>> I'll turn the question back to you, what is the problem that you think is 
>> there that needs to be solved?
>
> Here is one, but there are potentially more.  I would not close the door to 
> searching them.
>
> I dont have DISHY, so no first hand experience.
>
> But I suspect the IPv6 it supports it is an IPv6 encapsulated in IPv4. That 
> adds to latency, not to say bufferbloat.  It brings in a single point of 
> failure too (if it fails, then all fails).

is there some testing that I can do to help you with this?

personally, I suspect that even IPv4 is encapsulated in some way.

> Then, when they'll want to remove that they'd hit into the /64 issue.

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to here, sorry.

David Lang

> Alex
>> 
>> David Lang
>> 
>>> Thanks, Hesham
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Sep 17, 2023, 12:59 PM David Lang via Starlink < 
>>> starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> <mailto:starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> it's very clear that there is a computer in the dishy that you
>> are talking
>>>> to. You get the network connection while the dishy is not connected
>> to the
>>>> satellites (there's even a status page and controls, stowing and
>> unstowing
>>>> for example)
>>>> 
>>>> I think we've seen that the dishy is running linux (I know the
>> routers run
>>>> an old openwrt), but I don't remember the details of the dishy
>> software.
>>>> 
>>>> David Lang
>>>> 
>>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2023 19:21:50 +0200 From: Alexandre Petrescu via 
>>>>> Starlink
>> <starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net>>
>>>>> Reply-To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu at gmail.com
>> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu at gmail.com>>
>>>>> To: starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> <mailto:starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of
>>>> Satellites and
>>>>> Terrestial Networks
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Le 16/09/2023 à 01:32, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink a écrit :
>>>>>> On 16/09/2023 5:52 am, David Lang wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In addition to that Ulrich says, the dishy is a full
>> computer, it's
>>>>>>> output is ethernet/IP and with some adapters or cable
>> changes, you
>>>>>>> can plug it directly into a router.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We've done that with the Yaosheng PoE Dishy adapter - actually
>> plugged
>>>>>> a DHCP client straight in - and it "works" but with a noticeably higher 
>>>>>> rate of disconnects.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is good to know one can plug a DHCP client into the Ethernet
>> of the
>>>>> DISHY and receive DHCP replies.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But that would be only a lead into what kind of DHCPv4 is
>> supported, or
>>>> not.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would ask to know whether the DHCP server runs on the DISHY, or 
>>>>> whether it is on the ground network of starlink, i.e. the reply
>> to DHCP
>>>>> request comes after 50ms, or after 500microseconds (timestamp
>> difference
>>>>> can be seen in the wireshark run on that Ethernet).
>>>>> 
>>>>> This (DHCP server daemon on dishy or on ground segment) has an
>> impact of
>>>>> how IPv6  can be, or is, made to work.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This kind of behaviour of DHCP - basically asking who
>>>>> allocates an address - has seen a continous evolution in 3GPP
>>>>> cellular
>> networks since
>>>>> they appeared.  Nowadays the DHCP behaviour is very complex in
>> a 3GPP
>>>>> network; even in a typical smartphone there are intricacies
>> about where
>>>>> and how the DHCP client and server works. With it comes the
>> problem of
>>>>> /64 in cellular networks (which some dont call a problem, but I
>> do).
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, it would be interesting to see whether starlink has the
>> same /64
>>>>> problem as 3GPP has, or is free of it (simply put: can I
>> connect several
>>>>> Ethernet subnets in my home to starlink, in native IPv6 that is, or
>>>> not?).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Alex
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________ Starlink mailing list 
>>>>> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> <mailto:Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Starlink mailing list Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> <mailto:Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>