From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 941543B2A4 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2023 07:29:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 38FBTDYO048538; Fri, 15 Sep 2023 13:29:13 +0200 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 9B62B20598E; Fri, 15 Sep 2023 13:29:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89BC2205978; Fri, 15 Sep 2023 13:29:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.8.32.70] (is156570.intra.cea.fr [10.8.32.70]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 38FBTDSd018719; Fri, 15 Sep 2023 13:29:13 +0200 Message-ID: <2012b68c-2e15-4b5c-b36b-3b1d7eff12b4@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 13:29:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: fr To: Inemesit Affia , David Lang Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <2d05e701-7556-8ae4-122c-e2f2d23feff2@gmail.com> <4o116qp9-6108-91r8-pn91-o37o6629npqo@ynat.uz> From: Alexandre Petrescu In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of Satellites and Terrestial Networks 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, 15 Sep 2023 11:29:17 -0000 Le 01/09/2023 à 18:27, Inemesit Affia a écrit : > For the US military, starlink has already allowed two > antenna/terminal manufacturers to connect to the network. > > Ball aerospace for aircraft. > > DUJUD(hope I got that right) for regular user terminals. Thanks, I did not know that. It is not clear from the announcements I read whether Ball aerospace and DUJUD are simply antennas (albeit complex) plugged into starlink boxes with a 50 ohm RF cable, or are they more computing than that. I must say that I dont know whether the original 'DISHY' is simply a dish antenna with an analog amplifier and maybe some mechanical motor steering, or whether DISHY includes a computer to execute some protocol, some algorithm. If DUJUD and Ball aerospace make more than just the antennas, maybe program some computers, then indeed there can be a sharing of protocol documents from SpaceX (starlink) to DUJUD and Ball aerospace. At that point we'd be talking maybe of licensing. These might be the premisses of a need of interoperability. Alex > > Any antenna that connects with OneWeb should theoretically work apart > from the DRM > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 8:36 PM David Lang > wrote: > > Exactly my thoughts (I haven't downloaded and read the full report > yet). What are they looking to do with this 'integration'? I can > integrate my starlink just like any other ISP. > > or are they looking at the 'cell phones to orbit' functionality thats > due to roll out very suddently > > or are they looking for "intergration" as another way to say "force > SpaceX to open the specs for Starlink and allow other user terminals > to interact with the Starlink satellites? > > The cynic in me says it's the latter. > > long term it may make sense to do this to some degree, but we are WAY > too early to define "Interoperability Standards" and block people > from coming up with better ways to do things. > > the Apple vs SpaceX cellphone-to-satellite have completely different > ways of operating, and who wants to tell all the Apple people that > their way isn't going to be the standard (or worse, that it is and > they have to give everyone else the ability to use their currently > proprietary protocol) > > David Lang > > On Wed, 30 Aug 2023, Inemesit Affia via Starlink wrote: > >> With the existence of solutions like OpenMTCProuter, SDWAN, > policy based >> routing or any solution in general that allows combination in a > sense of >> any number of IP links, I really don't see a point for specific > solutions. >> Can anyone enlighten me? >> >> For home users an issue may be IP blocks for certain services > like Netflix >> when the egress is out of a VPN or cloud provider richer than a > residential >> provider >> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 2:57 PM Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink < >> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > > wrote: >> >>> >>> Le 30/08/2023 à 14:10, Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink a écrit : >>>> Here is a report which summarizes the outcome of the last > Satellites >>>> conference [ >>> > https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/39841-satellite-2023-summary-linking-up > > > >> ] >>>> >>>> The report highlights the two main hurdles against the > integration of >>>> satellites and terrestrial networks: standardization and > business model. >>>> >>>> "/Most of the pushback against closer integration of >>>> terrestrial wireless and satellite networks revolved around > standardization. This >>>> may just be growing pains and it likely reflects the relative >>>> positions of wireless and satellite along the maturity curve, > but some >>>> of the speakers were arguing against standardization. The basis >>>> of this argument was that the mobile industry only understands > standards, >>>> but the satellite industry is currently differentiating based >>>> on custom systems and capabilities. The feeling was that the >>>> satellite industry had focused on technology and not >>>> regulations or standards and changing that course would not be >>>> helpful to the industry > in the >>>> short term. Timing is important in this analysis because >>>> almost everyone agreed that at some point, standardization >>>> would be a good thing, but the concern was the best way to get >>>> to the point in the future. The other interesting argument >>>> against closer integration between wireless and satellite had >>>> to do with the business model. Several speakers questioned >>>> where the customers would go as terrestrial and non-terrestrial >>>> networks become more > integrated. The >>>> underlying issues seemed to include who is responsible for >>>> solving network issues and perhaps more importantly, who >>>> recognizes the revenue. These issues seem, perhaps a bit >>>> simplistically, to be similar to early wireless roaming issues. >>>> While these issues > created >>>> turbulence in the wireless market, they were solved and that >>>> is probably a template to address these challenges for the > wireless and >>>> satellite operators."/ / / Comments? >>> >>> >>> It is an interesting report. >>> >>> For standardisation standpoint, it seems SDOs do push towards >>> integration of 5G/6G and satcom; there are strong initiatives at > least >>> at 3GPP (NTN WI proposals) and IETF (TVR WG) in that direction. >>> But these are SDOs traditionally oriented to land communications, >>> rather than space satcom. >>> >>> I wonder whether space satcom traditional SDOs (which ones?) >>> have initiated work towards integration with 5G/6G and other >>> land-based Internet? >>> >>> Alex >>> >>>> >>>> Hesham >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ Starlink >>>> mailing list Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > >>> _______________________________________________ Starlink mailing >>> list Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > >>> >> _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > >