From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp124.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp124.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F21903B2A4 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2022 15:14:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from app3.wa-webapps.iad3a (relay-webapps.rsapps.net [172.27.255.140]) by smtp32.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 7618D56B0 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2022 15:14:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from deepplum.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by app3.wa-webapps.iad3a (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60800A287D for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2022 15:14:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by apps.rackspace.com (Authenticated sender: dpreed@deepplum.com, from: dpreed@deepplum.com) with HTTP; Fri, 14 Oct 2022 15:14:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Auth-ID: dpreed@deepplum.com Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2022 15:14:49 -0400 (EDT) From: "David P. Reed" To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_20221014151449000000_32089" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Type: html In-Reply-To: References: X-Client-IP: 209.6.168.128 Message-ID: <1665774889.392518761@apps.rackspace.com> X-Mailer: webmail/19.0.21-RC X-Classification-ID: 1284b465-871a-4c20-b683-899c4da3fb61-1-1 Subject: Re: [Starlink] The DoD "Transport Layer" 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: Fri, 14 Oct 2022 19:14:50 -0000 ------=_20221014151449000000_32089 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0AAh, hell. DoD ain't the ARPA of the '70's. The Beltway Bandits aren't go= nna build any friggin' fairy Internet. Nope, Space calls for John Wayne-sty= le Gold Plated designs. No COTS architecture is relevent to "space, the fin= al frontier".=0A =0AThis is gonna be pure "5G" (the protocol stack of that = name, requiring algorithms of that name).=0ABecause, after all, Space Force= wants to argue to control a bigger budget and develop its own unique "Spac= e Transport" system.=0A =0ANow that is sarcastic, but since I was involved = in the rationale for the Internet *in the ARPA concept*, and know Vint and = Bob's mandate, I think it will turn out to be more true than not.=0A =0AThe= reasons the branches of DoD cannot interoperate their networks is basicall= y caused by "contracting out" based on bids with specifications that allow = each vendor to throw non-interoperable features into the mix, so that they = lock in DoD to lots of incompatible technology. The bureaucrats (Admirals, = Generals, Colonels, and civilian agency staff) only get to "review proposal= s" for "complete systems".=0A =0AThe most recent example of such a fiasco I= happened to get close to was the attempt to modernize the radio "waveforms= " (really protocols) of DoD spectrum. OMG. What a procurement nightmare. Th= e clear career path of those in charge of procurement was to "retire" and g= o to work for the winning contractors as employee or consultant to the sale= s process.=0A =0AA less recent example was when services came in Iraq when = it was learned that systems never interoperated - why? Well, some young off= icers in their "spare time" hacked together a system called RIPRNET, which = was basically the Internet architecture using cheap COTS walkie-talkies as = links that bypassed all the gold plated but isolated tech. (and of course t= he robots deployed in Iraq spoke IP, as well).=0A =0AIs this "corrupt"? No,= it's just profit maximizing for the vendors. Free market if you don't plan= for what will be needed.=0A =0AThere certainly won't be any "open source l= icensing" on any software here. The trivial argument that the Chinese will = infiltrate the design is a pocket veto.=0A =0AThe real question is why does= n't this network get built using IPv6 transport? It would certainly be a l= ot cheaper and it would work from day one. Ask your Congressional represent= atives, why? But having worked on the FCC TAC and so forth, as well as deal= ing with some smart folks in DoD over the years (like Vint and Bob, but als= o Admiral McMullen, and John McCain's staff) the technolobbyists have alrea= dy circulated bogus technical reasons why the Internet cannot work in Space= . Is there an Internet in Star Trek? Well, that proves it then! There are l= ots of consultants who worked for proprietary gear vendors who will write i= mpressive but obscurantist technical papers to argue that the Internet arch= itecture can't work at all in Space. And Congressional staffers who are "in= on the con" will wave those papers around.=0A =0AHow did we get the Intern= et? NOT because DoD spec'ed it into contracts for DoD procurement. Nope, a = small group invented internetworking as a universal *overlay* at the lowest= levels of hardware, and paid BBN and some universities to demonstrate how = to make it work. That was cheap - not the kind of money that a "real" Space= Force must spend!=0A =0A =0A> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2022 06:59:46 -0700=0A=0A>= From: Dave Taht =0A> To: Dave Taht via Starlink =0A> Subject: [Starlink] The DoD "Transport Laye= r"=0A> Message-ID:=0A> =0A> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"UTF-8"=0A> =0A> I= t looks like an "internet" in space is shaping up. In a much earlier=0A> th= read on this list, there was a presentation about the moon<->earth=0A> arch= itectures and standards being sorted out. It was an awful looking=0A> amalg= am of every technology we have available today from lte to wifi=0A> to the = bundle protocol and everything in between. I can't find the=0A> site that p= ointed at the specs now (?)=0A> =0A> Right now it's reminding me of the bad= ole days, where you'd find me on=0A> =0A> ..leo!LunarGW!rhysling_crater!dt= aht.=0A> =0A> And then there's this that went by yesterday:=0A> =0A> "DIU= =E2=80=99s hybrid space architecture would use commercial communication=0A>= systems as transport pipes to move data collected by imaging=0A> satellite= s and deliver it quickly to government users. The concept=0A> assumes that = commercial satellites will talk to each other via=0A> interoperable links.= =0A> =0A> Shimmin said his office awards contracts to commercial companies = with=0A> incentives that =E2=80=9Cgently encourage different vendors to coo= perate=0A> together.=E2=80=9D By doing that, =E2=80=9Cwe=E2=80=99ve created= a much more=0A> collaborative=0A> relationship with our vendors.=E2=80=9D= =0A =0A[DPR] contract requirements create collusion among winners, not inte= roperability or inexpensive upgradeability. There's a better strategy. Not = that I can be heard on this, I suspect even Vint can't be heard on this:=0A= Mandate that Internet Architectures MUST be used unless a panel of independ= ent scientists who have no financial or careerist conflicts can be convince= d it can't work.=0AMandate the End-to-end argument be used to place functio= nality at the "edges" where updates can be incrementally made without chang= ing the underlying transport at all.=0A=0A> =0A> DIU is working with the Sp= ace Force and the Air Force Research=0A> Laboratory on the hybrid architect= ure. The project is intended to=0A> support Pentagon efforts to connect gro= und, air, maritime and space=0A> systems, a concept known as Joint All-Doma= in Command and Control, or=0A> JADC2.=0A> =0A> The backbone of the hybrid n= etwork will be DoD=E2=80=99s Transport Layer, a=0A> constellation to be dep= loyed by the Space Development Agency, he said.=0A =0A[DPR] Oh great, a pro= posal to scrap all of the past and replace it with a grand unified theory o= f the future that will have to completed 100% before it can be tested. This= may seem like the Internet, but in fact, the Internet was the opposite - a= modest proposal that could be tested from day 0.=0A=0A> =E2=80=9CWe want t= o augment it with the commercial communications=0A> architectures that are = coming online to proliferate the internet in=0A> space, get every satellite= talking to every other satellite, relaying=0A> through ground stations reg= ardless of who owns the ground stations,=0A> they should all function as ro= uters.=E2=80=9D=0A> =0A> The thinking in JADC2 is =E2=80=9Cto embrace multi= ple providers so we don=E2=80=99t=0A> have a single point of failure,=E2=80= =9D said Shimmin. "=0A =0A[DPR] Conflating multiple providers with fault to= lerance is a terrible mistake. It's not the use of multiple providers that = creates the fault tolerance of the Internet Architecture. It's that it *doe= sn't matter if a provider doesn't deliver a packet*. That's not a procureme= nt issue, but a routing issue. That is, you don't start by choosing provide= rs. You start by ignoring providers proposals. Instead you create an overla= y that is provider independent, specify it, and then accept bids to extend = the overlay more broadly.=0A =0A> =0A> =0A> https://spacenews.com/starlinks= -market-dominance-affecting-dods-hybrid-network-plans/=0A>=0A[DPR] C'mon. S= tarlink doesn't have "market dominance" in any market. It may have more sat= ellites in space, but that's because satellites are a dime a dozen. DoD cle= arly hasn't looked at the space communications issues. SpaceX may have laun= ch capability market dominance.=0A =0A> =0A> =0A> --=0A> This song goes out= to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:=0A> https://www.linkedin.c= om/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz=0A> Dave= T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC=0A=0A ------=_20221014151449000000_32089 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ah, hell. DoD ain't th= e ARPA of the '70's. The Beltway Bandits aren't gonna build any friggin' fa= iry Internet. Nope, Space calls for John Wayne-style Gold Plated designs. N= o COTS architecture is relevent to "space, the final frontier".

=0A=

 

=0A

This is gonna be pur= e "5G" (the protocol stack of that name, requiring algorithms of that name)= .

=0A

Because, after all, Space Force wants to argue= to control a bigger budget and develop its own unique "Space Transport" sy= stem.

=0A

 

=0A

Now that= is sarcastic, but since I was involved in the rationale for the Internet *= in the ARPA concept*, and know Vint and Bob's mandate, I think it will turn= out to be more true than not.

=0A

 

=0A

The reasons the branches of DoD cannot interoperate their = networks is basically caused by "contracting out" based on bids with specif= ications that allow each vendor to throw non-interoperable features into th= e mix, so that they lock in DoD to lots of incompatible technology. The bur= eaucrats (Admirals, Generals, Colonels, and civilian agency staff) only get= to "review proposals" for "complete systems".

=0A

&= nbsp;

=0A

The most recent example of such a fiasco I= happened to get close to was the attempt to modernize the radio "waveforms= " (really protocols) of DoD spectrum. OMG. What a procurement nightmare. Th= e clear career path of those in charge of procurement was to "retire" and g= o to work for the winning contractors as employee or consultant to the sale= s process.

=0A

 

=0A

A l= ess recent example was when services came in Iraq when it was learned that = systems never interoperated - why? Well, some young officers in their "spar= e time" hacked together a system called RIPRNET, which was basically the In= ternet architecture using cheap COTS walkie-talkies as links that bypassed = all the gold plated but isolated tech. (and of course the robots deployed i= n Iraq spoke IP, as well).

=0A

 

=0A

Is this "corrupt"? No, it's just profit maximizing for the ven= dors. Free market if you don't plan for what will be needed.

=0A

 

=0A

There certainly won't be any= "open source licensing" on any software here. The trivial argument that th= e Chinese will infiltrate the design is a pocket veto.

=0A

 

=0A

The real question is why doesn't t= his  network get built using IPv6 transport? It would certainly be a l= ot cheaper and it would work from day one. Ask your Congressional represent= atives, why? But having worked on the FCC TAC and so forth, as well as deal= ing with some smart folks in DoD over the years (like Vint and Bob, but als= o Admiral McMullen, and John McCain's staff) the technolobbyists have alrea= dy circulated bogus technical reasons why the Internet cannot work in Space= . Is there an Internet in Star Trek? Well, that proves it then! There are l= ots of consultants who worked for proprietary gear vendors who will write i= mpressive but obscurantist technical papers to argue that the Internet arch= itecture can't work at all in Space. And Congressional staffers who are "in= on the con" will wave those papers around.

=0A

&nbs= p;

=0A

How did we get the Internet? NOT because DoD = spec'ed it into contracts for DoD procurement. Nope, a small group invented= internetworking as a universal *overlay* at the lowest levels of hardware,= and paid BBN and some universities to demonstrate how to make it work. Tha= t was cheap - not the kind of money that a "real" Space Force must spend!=0A

 

=0A

 

=0A> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2022 06:59:46 -0700

=0A
=0A

> From: Dave Taht <= dave.taht@gmail.com>
> To: Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@l= ists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: [Starlink] The DoD "Transport L= ayer"
> Message-ID:
> <CAA93jw6RReXwaa0DvfkXNnHjfzxv+3th= 2p7qygEwd98srLgiZw@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; c= harset=3D"UTF-8"
>
> It looks like an "internet" in space = is shaping up. In a much earlier
> thread on this list, there was a= presentation about the moon<->earth
> architectures and stan= dards being sorted out. It was an awful looking
> amalgam of every = technology we have available today from lte to wifi
> to the bundle= protocol and everything in between. I can't find the
> site that p= ointed at the specs now (?)
>
> Right now it's reminding m= e of the bad ole days, where you'd find me on
>
> ..leo!Lu= narGW!rhysling_crater!dtaht.
>
> And then there's this tha= t went by yesterday:
>
> "DIU=E2=80=99s hybrid space archi= tecture would use commercial communication
> systems as transport p= ipes to move data collected by imaging
> satellites and deliver it = quickly to government users. The concept
> assumes that commercial = satellites will talk to each other via
> interoperable links.
= >
> Shimmin said his office awards contracts to commercial comp= anies with
> incentives that =E2=80=9Cgently encourage different ve= ndors to cooperate
> together.=E2=80=9D By doing that, =E2=80=9Cwe= =E2=80=99ve created a much more
> collaborative
> relations= hip with our vendors.=E2=80=9D

=0A

 

=0A

[DPR] contract requirements create collusion among winners= , not interoperability or inexpensive upgradeability. There's a better stra= tegy. Not that I can be heard on this, I suspect even Vint can't be heard o= n this:

=0A

Mandate that Internet Architectures MUST= be used unless a panel of independent scientists who have no financial or = careerist conflicts can be convinced it can't work.

=0A

Mandate the End-to-end argument be used to place functionality at the "= edges" where updates can be incrementally made without changing the underly= ing transport at all.

=0A


>
> DIU = is working with the Space Force and the Air Force Research
> Labora= tory on the hybrid architecture. The project is intended to
> suppo= rt Pentagon efforts to connect ground, air, maritime and space
> sy= stems, a concept known as Joint All-Domain Command and Control, or
>= ; JADC2.
>
> The backbone of the hybrid network will be Do= D=E2=80=99s Transport Layer, a
> constellation to be deployed by th= e Space Development Agency, he said.

=0A

 

= =0A

[DPR] Oh great, a proposal to scrap all of the past= and replace it with a grand unified theory of the future that will have to= completed 100% before it can be tested. This may seem like the Internet, b= ut in fact, the Internet was the opposite - a modest proposal that could be= tested from day 0.

=0A


> =E2=80=9CWe want = to augment it with the commercial communications
> architectures th= at are coming online to proliferate the internet in
> space, get ev= ery satellite talking to every other satellite, relaying
> through = ground stations regardless of who owns the ground stations,
> they = should all function as routers.=E2=80=9D
>
> The thinking = in JADC2 is =E2=80=9Cto embrace multiple providers so we don=E2=80=99t
> have a single point of failure,=E2=80=9D said Shimmin. "

=0A

 

=0A

[DPR] Conflating multiple = providers with fault tolerance is a terrible mistake. It's not the use of m= ultiple providers that creates the fault tolerance of the Internet Architec= ture. It's that it *doesn't matter if a provider doesn't deliver a packet*.= That's not a procurement issue, but a routing issue. That is, you don't st= art by choosing providers. You start by ignoring providers proposals. Inste= ad you create an overlay that is provider independent, specify it, and then= accept bids to extend the overlay more broadly.

=0A

 

=0A

>
>
> https://space= news.com/starlinks-market-dominance-affecting-dods-hybrid-network-plans/>

=0A

[DPR] C'mon. Starlink doesn't have "mark= et dominance" in any market. It may have more satellites in space, but that= 's because satellites are a dime a dozen. DoD clearly hasn't looked at the = space communications issues. SpaceX may have launch capability market domin= ance.

=0A

 

=0A

> >
> --
> This song goes out to all the folk that tho= ught Stadia would work:
> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-= mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
> Dave T=C3=A4ht CE= O, TekLibre, LLC

=0A
 ------=_20221014151449000000_32089--