From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from vsmx001.dclux.xion.oxcs.net (vsmx001.dclux.xion.oxcs.net [185.74.65.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF5CF3B29E for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 04:40:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from proxy-1.proxy.oxio.ns.xion.oxcs.net (proxy-1.proxy.oxio.ns.xion.oxcs.net [197.248.130.130]) by mx-out.dclux.xion.oxcs.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C6CC98C03A1; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 09:40:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dclux.xion.oxcs.net; s=mail1; t=1645522829; bh=sS3QX8rYyZM5J/f6Ky5rHdFslyOEdwNC+MDXlgz6MXQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=qTQoVlsAwTnDOcyalBbx8PG+mWU5pUSxojMkqT7dKjExSIBepD0dcGB2vNAss24FN x7Cugh7OwALDwWYumEerjlMYIQxWzkSw/MJ1kxSAGX8ZvZLm/VEAmMBh9YV9U4aRCa yE114bHrHB9CapgJ7rXkk+/Svh0PJ6Eeev+l66knVF4fOsRPXlwvI9R7m3TuokcSTH 5CYdwJszBBSkEiamWwkNnH+mBz/46bJyZXi5rkFmZxugfPAF5D/rIpXZvQHQEjOkaW eVs8cOemUAMwPF7YtWfCpImUOPKCgWu78M+QX0KQ/irxpkC+riyWHmRJZS6zOFIwOS ex6cQDuedzNSw== Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 12:40:11 +0300 From: Mike Puchol To: Sebastian Moeller Cc: Daniel AJ Sokolov , David Lang , dickroy@alum.mit.edu, starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net Message-ID: <0ecefa3c-da5c-48c6-b60d-e2e121d1319c@Spark> In-Reply-To: <66B75B7A-82DF-4A92-BC74-CB0422E2BABC@gmx.de> References: <1p492142-q944-r494-6s6r-p6q37s57qnq4@ynat.uz> <1F1EB112F8CB446FAB4BF308A76955FA@SRA6> <0ac195f5-3668-4c96-8dec-8a2d59a0bd52@Spark> <866405-s043-n12n-6pqs-46o38r189218@ynat.uz> <38pr9p5s-3ro4-49p9-9535-7o92oqrq62r1@ynat.uz> <80753e77-f7ba-466f-8222-66c16059f600@Spark> <66B75B7A-82DF-4A92-BC74-CB0422E2BABC@gmx.de> X-Readdle-Message-ID: 0ecefa3c-da5c-48c6-b60d-e2e121d1319c@Spark MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="6214af80_737b8ddc_2ed6" X-VadeSecure-Status: LEGIT X-VADE-STATUS: LEGIT Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 09:40:31 -0000 --6214af80_737b8ddc_2ed6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline The optical links work in IR spectrum, so non-visible. They would not be = a concern for aircraft the same way green lasers are. On David=E2=80=99s comment =22but if you can easily route traffic to a gr= ound station that's further away and not currently saturated=E2=80=9D, th= at is true as long as the path that is connected over ISL has visibility = of that other ground station. I will add ISL to my tracker shortly so we = can start simulating these things. Best, Mike On =46eb 22, 2022, 12:04 +0300, Sebastian Moeller , wr= ote: > Intersting=21 > > Silly question, giving that there are already law suits for people poin= ting lasers at airplanes, how are these commercial laster terminals avoid= ing that issue=3F > > Regards > Sebastian > > > > > > On =46eb 22, 2022, at 08:42, Mike Puchol wrote: > > > > I did over-simplify so the point was better understood. On the optica= l gateways, these exist already: https://mynaric.com/products/ground-capa= bilities/ > > > > Once you have an optical mesh in orbit, the only practical way to pro= vide it with massive capacity is optical links - there isn=E2=80=99t enou= gh radio spectrum that would do it (without a massive ground gateway netw= ork with enough physical separation). You can create a network of optical= gateways that guarantees a number of them will not be impared by cloud c= over at any given time. Optical has the advantage of being license-free, = too. > > > > Best, > > > > Mike > > On =46eb 22, 2022, 10:20 +0300, Dick Roy , wr= ote: > > > > > > > > > =46rom: Starlink =5Bmailto:starlink-bounces=40lists.bufferbloat.net= =5D On Behalf Of Mike Puchol > > > Sent: Monday, =46ebruary 21, 2022 9:35 PM > > > To: Daniel AJ Sokolov; David Lang > > > Cc: starlink=40lists.bufferbloat.net > > > Subject: Re: =5BStarlink=5D Starlink Roaming > > > > > > > > > Actually, laser links would make gateway connectivity *worse*. If w= e take the scenario attached, one gateway is suddenly having to serve tra= ffic from all UTs that were not previously under coverage. > > > > > > A satellite under full load can saturate two gateway links by itsel= f. If you load, say, 20 satellites in an orbital plane, onto a single gat= eway, over ISL, you effectively have 5% of each satellite=E2=80=99s capac= ity available (given an equal distribution of demand, of course there wil= l be satellites with no UTs to cover etc.). > > > > > > =5BRR=5D I think to do this analysis correctly; one needs to consid= er the larger system and the time-varying loads on the components thereof= . What you say is true; just a bit over-simplified to be maximally useful= . Routing through complex congested networks is well-studied problem and = hnts at possible solutions can probably be found thereJ) > > > > > > > > > > > > Eventually they will go for optical gateways, it=E2=80=99s the only= way to get enough capacity to the constellation, specially the 30k satel= lite version. > > > > > > =5BRR=5D What do you mean by =E2=80=9C=E2=80=9Doptical gateway=E2=80= =9D=3F An optical link from the satellite to the ground station=3F That w= ould be real expensive at least power-wise and unreliable. > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > On =46eb 22, 2022, 05:17 +0300, David Lang , wrote= : > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 21 =46eb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded = a > > > bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabiliti= es in > > > the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot= more > > > flexibility) > > > > > > > > > Isn't that a very optimistic assessment=3F :-) > > > > > > Laser links are great for remote locations with very few users, but= how > > > could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with too many u= sers=3F > > > > > > The laser links can reduce the required density of ground stations,= but > > > they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground station not buil= t > > > thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations - and, may= be > > > more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does eventually > > > connect to a ground station. > > > > > > Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a sm= all > > > help here and there=3F > > > > > > > > > My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route = the traffic > > > from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm regis= tered with as > > > opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far f= rom my > > > registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station. > > > > > > Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage: > > > > > > 1. satellite bandwidth > > > 2. ground station bandwidth > > > > > > laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the second one.= > > > > > > We know that they can do mobile dishes (they are testing it current= ly on Elon's > > > gulfstream, =46AR more mobile that I will ever be :-) ) > > > > > > David Lang > > > =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F > > > Starlink mailing list > > > Starlink=40lists.bufferbloat.net > > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > > > > > =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F > > Starlink mailing list > > Starlink=40lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > --6214af80_737b8ddc_2ed6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
The optical links work in IR spectrum, so non-visib= le. They would not be a concern for aircraft the same way green lasers ar= e.

On David=E2=80=99s comment =22but if you can easily route traffic to a gr= ound station that's further away and not currently saturated=E2=80=9D, th= at is true as long as the path that is connected over ISL has visibility = of that other ground station. I will add ISL to my tracker shortly so we = can start simulating these things.

Best,

Mike
On =46eb 22, 2022, 12:04 +0300, Seb= astian Moeller <moeller0=40gmx.de>, wrote:
Intersting=21

Silly question, giving that there are already law suits for people pointi= ng lasers at airplanes, how are these commercial laster terminals avoidin= g that issue=3F

Regards
Sebastian




On =46eb 22, 2022, at 08:42, Mike Puchol &l= t;mike=40starlink.sx> wrote:

I did over-simplify so the point was better understood. On the optical ga= teways, these exist already: https://mynaric.com/products/ground-capabili= ties/

Once you have an optical mesh in orbit, the only practical way to provide= it with massive capacity is optical links - there isn=E2=80=99t enough r= adio spectrum that would do it (without a massive ground gateway network = with enough physical separation). You can create a network of optical gat= eways that guarantees a number of them will not be impared by cloud cover= at any given time. Optical has the advantage of being license-free, too.=

Best,

Mike
On =46eb 22, 2022, 10:20 +0300, Dick Roy <dickroy=40alum.mit.edu>, = wrote:


=46rom: Starlink =5Bmailto:starlink-bounces=40lists.bufferbloat.net=5D On= Behalf Of Mike Puchol
Sent: Monday, =46ebruary 21, 2022 9:35 PM
To: Daniel AJ Sokolov; David Lang
Cc: starlink=40lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: =5BStarlink=5D Starlink Roaming


Actually, laser links would make gateway connectivity *worse*. If we take= the scenario attached, one gateway is suddenly having to serve traffic f= rom all UTs that were not previously under coverage.

A satellite under full load can saturate two gateway links by itself. If = you load, say, 20 satellites in an orbital plane, onto a single gateway, = over ISL, you effectively have 5% of each satellite=E2=80=99s capacity av= ailable (given an equal distribution of demand, of course there will be s= atellites with no UTs to cover etc.).

=5BRR=5D I think to do this analysis correctly; one needs to consider the= larger system and the time-varying loads on the components thereof. What= you say is true; just a bit over-simplified to be maximally useful. Rout= ing through complex congested networks is well-studied problem and hnts a= t possible solutions can probably be found thereJ)



Eventually they will go for optical gateways, it=E2=80=99s the only way t= o get enough capacity to the constellation, specially the 30k satellite v= ersion.

=5BRR=5D What do you mean by =E2=80=9C=E2=80=9Doptical gateway=E2=80=9D=3F= An optical link from the satellite to the ground station=3F That would b= e real expensive at least power-wise and unreliable.


Best,

Mike

On =46eb 22, 2022, 05:17 +0300, David Lang <david=40lang.hm>, wrote= :


On Mon, 21 =46eb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote:


On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote:



They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a
bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in<= br /> the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more<= br /> flexibility)


Isn't that a very optimistic assessment=3F :-)

Laser links are great for remote locations with very few users, but how could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with too many users=3F=

The laser links can reduce the required density of ground stations, but they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground station not built
thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations - and, maybe
more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does eventually
connect to a ground station.

Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a small help here and there=3F


My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route the tr= affic
from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm registered = with as
opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far from my=
registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station.

Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage:

1. satellite bandwidth
2. ground station bandwidth

laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the second one.
=
We know that they can do mobile dishes (they are testing it currently on = Elon's
gulfstream, =46AR more mobile that I will ever be :-) )

David Lang
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F
Starlink mailing list
Starlink=40lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F
Starlink mailing list
Starlink=40lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

--6214af80_737b8ddc_2ed6--