From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fout-b2-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-b2-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FDA13B2A4 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 10:37:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-compute-06.internal (phl-compute-06.phl.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailfout.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C707F1140158; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 10:37:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-imap-08 ([10.202.2.84]) by phl-compute-06.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 21 Jan 2025 10:37:04 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lochnair.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1737473824; x=1737560224; bh=pXeYcE69Aj/j+yU/wKS4YtgoUifKZ585thz2qonLqos=; b= MNwLAlJ1bNMfVr+ufhsnoeE/W7+afubiCyzncny37HdzaUMuT8aOLzuxVUPFyxDR E3CGP+F/EQB9czI5pJH3XYzlhnZJVCnO5bIgCpcPTXn0F/8HuGCky5jq4T6Xvk/y fQWS8e+esFodu8M6Qxwogb6jltPE0dvj68oJygJtswYu0+Pl1rlyvEz3I60WeauV BlLjg6XHQs+nEFqGwS+F7xBj9bq1HNNJc9WUmoeCZMW52j8X7z5ZZ9f9QBL+maOd Kb9IG3C2xgE/gwi/PhNL/048SHLkfOg7DAJ5HMg7w/NrAuCLPoYP/Dl9KV+e3ocs OM7G375IEroneoWBZwgZJg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1737473824; x= 1737560224; bh=pXeYcE69Aj/j+yU/wKS4YtgoUifKZ585thz2qonLqos=; b=j /YpCE3zwGhfYR2YM8gSWt7bANYB8qVnz7NXg+jeg/rqZKNu3JEfjb15VAxPqOcWT lfi1ay4MJvg8RsXNhq57X20jxn2nWeGLeDxfyRVsDsOsNkrE5kJmXtPciW3T5b4I MMhKrCt7Az3AhFPH0eT79M9tRX4EmDdO7eVNrOzpN3zCOsKfqDn12LmZDicN9aID vqPKI29B5nEcTMG5DH3rYNOjhg+asLqnWRKTE1xnJTM391JufwEMtQ0nsKbnUXfy LxgWZrwNvZL1+N53D8+s3ZThxibGW25NkOdkBwvMjS+eDCBzn7/1xxIAtDyqNuxl aOLeqeOq7H0j/GDftJSWw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefuddrudejvddggeelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfu rfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnh htshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepofggfffhvfevkfgjfhfutgfgsehtjeertdertddt necuhfhrohhmpedfpfhilhhsucetnhgurhgvrghsucfuvhgvvgdfuceomhgvsehlohgthh hnrghirhdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepjeelgeelueduleetueekvefgffet teffteduhfelheejtddvtdeihfefkeetkeffnecuffhomhgrihhnpehgihhthhhusgdrtg homhdpsghufhhfvghrsghlohgrthdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecu rfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmvgeslhhotghhnhgrihhrrdhnvghtpdhnsggprh gtphhtthhopeefpdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopehmohgvlhhlvghr tdesghhmgidruggvpdhrtghpthhtohepuggrvhhiugeslhgrnhhgrdhhmhdprhgtphhtth hopehsthgrrhhlihhnkheslhhishhtshdrsghufhhfvghrsghlohgrthdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i6a5b4305:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.phl.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 56CD018A006F; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 10:37:04 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 22:36:44 +0700 From: "Nils Andreas Svee" To: "Sebastian Moeller" , "David Lang" Cc: "Dave Taht via Starlink" Message-Id: <2bbbeb23-fb78-4cc2-ad4b-0bce4d2e96af@app.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <269839o2-003o-1756-8r28-3on7q7nsrn54@ynat.uz> <36r7n950-4qs8-1p06-3595-95or55n5p181@ynat.uz> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Starlink] starlink and VPN 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, 21 Jan 2025 15:37:05 -0000 Correct, and by design I believe, as TCP-in-TCP isn't really ideal. The documentation points to tools such as [1] or [2] if TCP transport is absolutely necessary. [1]: https://github.com/wangyu-/udp2raw [2]: https://github.com/rfc1036/udptunnel Best Regards Nils On Tue, Jan 21, 2025, at 22:27, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink wrote: > Hi David, > >> On 21. Jan 2025, at 16:22, David Lang via Starlink wrote: >> >> b. angel wrote: >> >>> David, >>> >>> I gave up on open VPN and starlink a while ago. I've implemented wireguard >>> tunnels with success and reliability. >> >> did you end up having to do anything with MTU? Did you use TCP or UDP for your transport? > > Wireguard itself only allows UDP IIRC, you would need an additional > outer TCP tunnel if you want/need TCP on the outside... > >> >> David Lang >> >>> Keith >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2025, 23:25 David Lang via Starlink < >>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: >>> >>>> has anyone done any work with openvpn over starlink (especially if they >>>> got the >>>> connectors to completely bypass the router)? >>>> >>>> I've got the basic connectivity working, but am having problems trying to >>>> get >>>> openvpn to work (especially for traffic back through the cgnat to the >>>> router on >>>> the starlink side) >>>> >>>> the logs on the client are reporting link local: (not bound) when trying >>>> UDP, >>>> when I try TCP (and clamp the mtu low) I can connect from the starlink >>>> side (st >>>> least sometimes) but cannot get the routing the other way to work >>>> >>>> David Lang >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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