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 82A873B29E for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 13:43:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from proxy-1.proxy.oxio.ns.xion.oxcs.net (proxy-1.proxy.oxio.ns.xion.oxcs.net [83.61.18.4]) by mx-out.dclux.xion.oxcs.net (Postfix) with SMTP id D99B38C0A39; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 17:43:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dclux.xion.oxcs.net; s=mail1; t=1626457386; bh=dJxCHa5BBbRYg/xLMWA/eKUI5a1msyUUFFC0FTn1TF4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=lyu0NsjW8W9Kc6/gIxlpTXW6F3wwYipYNYIr9ewRA0CDDhSvmpTIUkA8Ip8X9AblJ KmYaapaKdEGmuHcxbc3RDxHout4KlsB1s21MoUVwQlgcNNQPH2TgE/j0/fj0+Bcvrz UDXAzATsDd9G2MqJuA8NmKj/r/r+pa6iCcGSzfYB9QBHL1aIWY4v0+F/qdcDLRBchO WSgL37erJgUUC5iDm85ddhU+ZttQB4UTp8QkgAAP+fqgEf+3p/VtirsI+ji0rETFdj cBAEZLAQoMfPQWdgbDOBb6a83WQDoDiTe+cAIOsETeu1a1rbLqswEGx/qFEP30jwkO bZaxaNorVabZQ== Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:42:55 +0200 From: Mike Puchol To: David Lang Cc: Nathan Owens , "=?utf-8?Q?starlink=40lists.bufferbloat.net?=" , "David P. Reed" Message-ID: <33ae5470-a05a-484e-adc6-4baca6ede9ad@Spark> In-Reply-To: References: <1625856001.74681750@apps.rackspace.com> X-Readdle-Message-ID: 33ae5470-a05a-484e-adc6-4baca6ede9ad@Spark MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="60f1c524_38437fdb_bde9" X-VadeSecure-Status: LEGIT X-VADE-STATUS: LEGIT Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink and bufferbloat status? 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, 16 Jul 2021 17:43:07 -0000 --60f1c524_38437fdb_bde9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline True, but we are then assuming that the optical links are a mesh between = satellites in the same plane, plus between planes. =46rom an engineering = problem point of view, keeping optical links in-plane only makes the syst= em extremely simpler (no full =46OV gimbals with the optical train in the= m, for example), and it solves the issue, as it is highly likely that at = least one satellite in any given plane will be within reach of a gateway.= Routing to an arbitrary gateway may involve passing via intermediate gate= ways, ground segments, and even using terminals as a hopping point. Best, Mike On Jul 16, 2021, 19:38 +0200, David Lang , wrote: > the speed of light in a vaccum is significantly better than the speed o= f light > in fiber, so if you are doing a cross country hop, terminal -> sat -> s= at -> sat > -> ground station (especially if the ground station is in the target da= tacenter) > can be faster than terminal -> sat -> ground station -> cross-country f= iber, > even accounting for the longer distance at 550km altitude than at groun= d level. > > This has interesting implications for supplementing/replacing undersea = cables as > the sats over the ocean are not going to be heavily used, dedicated gro= und > stations could be setup that use sats further offshore than normal (and= are > shielded from sats over land) to leverage the system without interferin= g > significantly with more 'traditional' uses > > David Lang > > On =46ri, 16 Jul 2021, Mike Puchol wrote: > > > Date: =46ri, 16 Jul 2021 19:31:37 +0200 > > =46rom: Mike Puchol > > To: David Lang , Nathan Owens > > Cc: =22starlink=40lists.bufferbloat.net=22 , > > David P. Reed > > Subject: Re: =5BStarlink=5D Starlink and bufferbloat status=3F > > > > Satellite optical links are useful to extend coverage to areas where = you don=E2=80=99t have gateways - thus, they will introduce additional la= tency compared to two space segment hops (terminal to satellite -> satell= ite to gateway). If you have terminal to satellite, two optical hops, the= n final satellite to gateway, you will have more latency, not less. > > > > We are being =E2=80=9Csold=E2=80=9D optical links for what they are n= ot IMHO. > > > > Best, > > > > Mike > > On Jul 16, 2021, 19:29 +0200, Nathan Owens , wrot= e: > > > > As there are more satellites, the up down time will get closer to= 4-5ms rather then the =7E7ms you list > > > > > > Possibly, if you do steering to always jump to the lowest latency s= atellite. > > > > > > > with laser relays in orbit, and terminal to terminal routing in o= rbit, there is the potential for the theoretical minimum to tend lower > > > Maybe for certain users really in the middle of nowhere, but I did = the best-case math for =22bent pipe=22 in Seattle area, which is as good = as it gets. > > > > > > > On =46ri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:24 AM David Lang w= rote: > > > > > hey, it's a good attitude to have :-) > > > > > > > > > > Elon tends to set 'impossible' goals, miss the timeline a bit, = and come very > > > > > close to the goal, if not exceed it. > > > > > > > > > > As there are more staellites, the up down time will get closer = to 4-5ms rather > > > > > then the =7E7ms you list, and with laser relays in orbit, and t= erminal to terminal > > > > > routing in orbit, there is the potential for the theoretical mi= nimum to tend > > > > > lower, giving some headroom for other overhead but still being = in the 20ms > > > > > range. > > > > > > > > > > David Lang > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0 On =46ri, 16 Jul 2021, Nathan Owens wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Elon said =22foolish packet routing=22 for things over 20ms=21= Which seems crazy > > > > > > if you do some basic math: > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0- Sat to User Terminal distance: 550-950km air/v= acuum: 1.9 - 3.3ms > > > > > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0- Sat to GW distance: 550-950km air/vacuum: 1.9 = - 3.3ms > > > > > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0- GW to PoP Distance: 50-800km fiber: 0.25 - 4ms= > > > > > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0- PoP to Internet Distance: 50km fiber: 0.25 - 0= .5ms > > > > > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0- Total one-way delay: 4.3 - 11.1ms > > > > > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0- Theoretical minimum RTT: 8.6ms - 22.2ms, call = it 15.4ms > > > > > > > > > > > > This includes no transmission delay, queuing delay, > > > > > > processing/fragmentation/reassembly/etc, and no time-division= multiplexing. > > > > > > > > > > > > On =46ri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:09 AM David Lang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it depends on if you are looking at datacenter-to-d= atacenter > > > > > > > latency of > > > > > > > home to remote datacenter latency :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my rule of thumb for cross US ping time has been 80-100ms l= atency (but > > > > > > > it's been > > > > > > > a few years since I tested it). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I note that an article I saw today said that Elon is saying= that latency > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > improve significantly in the near future, that up/down late= ncy is =7E20ms > > > > > > > and the > > > > > > > additional delays pushing it to the 80ms range are 'stupid = packet routing' > > > > > > > problems that they are working on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If they are still in that level of optimization, it doesn't= surprise me > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > they haven't really focused on the bufferbloat issue, they = have more > > > > > > > obvious > > > > > > > stuff to fix first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David Lang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0On =46ri, 16 Jul 2021, Wheelock, Ian wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: =46ri, 16 Jul 2021 10:21:52 +0000 > > > > > > > > =46rom: =22Wheelock, Ian=22 > > > > > > > > To: David Lang , David P. Reed > > > > > > > > Cc: =22starlink=40lists.bufferbloat.net=22 > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: =5BStarlink=5D Starlink and bufferbloat stat= us=3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi David > > > > > > > > In terms of the Latency that David (Reed) mentioned for C= alifornia to > > > > > > > Massachusetts of about 17ms over the public internet, it se= ems a bit faster > > > > > > > than what I would expect. My own traceroute via my VDSL lin= k shows 14ms > > > > > > > just to get out of the operator network. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.wondernetwork.com=C2=A0 is a handy tool for c= hecking geographic > > > > > > > ping perf between cities, and it shows a min of about 66ms = for pings > > > > > > > between Boston and San Diego > > > > > > > https://wondernetwork.com/pings/boston/San%20Diego (so abou= t 33ms for > > > > > > > 1-way transfer). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Distance wise this is about 4,100 KM (2,500 M), and =402/= 3 speed of light > > > > > > > (through a pure fibre link of that distance) the propagatio= n time is just > > > > > > > over 20ms. If the network equipment between the Boston and = San Diego is > > > > > > > factored in, with some buffering along the way, 33ms does s= eem quite > > > > > > > reasonable over the 20ms for speed of light in fibre for th= at 1-way transfer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Ian Wheelock > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =46rom: Starlink on behalf of > > > > > > > David Lang > > > > > > > > Date: =46riday 9 July 2021 at 23:59 > > > > > > > > To: =22David P. Reed=22 > > > > > > > > Cc: =22starlink=40lists.bufferbloat.net=22 > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: =5BStarlink=5D Starlink and bufferbloat stat= us=3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IIRC, the definition of 'low latency' for the =46CC was s= omething like > > > > > > > 100ms, and Musk was predicting <40ms. roughly competitive w= ith landlines, > > > > > > > and worlds better than geostationary satellite (and many > > > > > > > > External (mailto:david=40lang.hm) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://shared.outlook.inky.com/report=3Fid=3DY29tbXNjb3BlL= 2lhbi53aGVlbG9ja0Bjb21tc2NvcGUuY29tL2I1Mz=46jZDA4OTZmMWI0Yzc5NzdiOTIzNmY3= MTAzM2MxLzE2MjU4NzE1NDkuNjU=3D=23key=3D19e8545676e28e577c813de83a4cf1dc > > > > > > > =C2=A0 https://www.inky.com/banner-faq/=C2=A0 https://www.i= nky.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IIRC, the definition of 'low latency' for the =46CC was s= omething like > > > > > > > 100ms, and > > > > > > > > Musk was predicting <40ms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > roughly competitive with landlines, and worlds better tha= n geostationary > > > > > > > > satellite (and many wireless ISPs) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but when doing any serious testing of latency, you need t= o be wired to > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > router, wifi introduces so much variability that it swamp= s the signal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David Lang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On =46ri, 9 Jul 2021, David P. Reed wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: =46ri, 9 Jul 2021 14:40:01 -0400 (EDT) > > > > > > > > > =46rom: David P. Reed > > > > > > > > > To: starlink=40lists.bufferbloat.net > > > > > > > > > Subject: =5BStarlink=5D Starlink and bufferbloat status= =3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Early measurements of performance of Starlink have show= n significant > > > > > > > bufferbloat, as Dave Taht has shown. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But...=C2=A0 Starlink is a moving target. The bufferblo= at isn't a hardware > > > > > > > issue, it should be completely manageable, starting by simp= le firmware > > > > > > > changes inside the Starlink system itself. =46or example, i= mplementing > > > > > > > fq=5Fcodel so that bottleneck links just drop packets accor= ding to the Best > > > > > > > Practices R=46C, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I'm hoping this has improved since Dave's measuremen= ts. How much has > > > > > > > it improved=3F What's the current maximum packet latency un= der full > > > > > > > load,=C2=A0 Ive heard anecdotally that a friend of a friend= gets 84 msec. *ping > > > > > > > times under full load*, but he wasn't using flent or some o= ther measurement > > > > > > > tool of good quality that gives a true number. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 84 msec is not great - it's marginal for Zoom quality e= xperience (you > > > > > > > want latencies significantly less than 100 msec. as a rule = of thumb for > > > > > > > teleconferencing quality). But it is better than Dave's mea= surements showed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now Musk bragged that his network was =22low latency=22= unlike other high > > > > > > > speed services, which means low end-to-end latency.=C2=A0 T= hat got him > > > > > > > permission from the =46CC to operate Starlink at all. His n= umber was, I > > > > > > > think, < 5 msec. 84 is a lot more than 5. (I didn't believe= 5, because he > > > > > > > probably meant just the time from the ground station to the= terminal > > > > > > > through the satellite. But I regularly get 17 msec. between= California and > > > > > > > Massachusetts over the public Internet) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So 84 might be the current status. That would mean that= someone at > > > > > > > Srarlink might be paying some attention, but it is a long w= ay from what > > > > > > > Musk implied. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PS: I forget the number of the R=46C, but the number of= packets queued on > > > > > > > an egress link should be chosen by taking the hardware bott= leneck > > > > > > > throughput of any path, combined with an end-to-end Interne= t underlying > > > > > > > delay of about 10 msec. to account for hops between source = and destination. > > > > > > > Lets say Starlink allocates 50 Mb/sec to each customer, pac= kets are limited > > > > > > > to 10,000 bits (1500 * 8), so the outbound queues should be= limited to > > > > > > > about 0.01 * 50,000,000 / 10,000, which comes out to about = 250 packets from > > > > > > > each terminal of buffering, total, in the path from termina= l to public > > > > > > > Internet, assuming the connection to the public Internet is= not a problem. > > > > > > > > =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://secure-web.cisco.com/1sNc=5F-1HhGCW7xdirt=5FlAoAy5N= n5T6UA85Scjn5BR7QHXtumhrf6RKn78SuRJG7DUKI3duggU9g6hJKW-Ze07HTczYqB9mBpIeA= Lqk5drQ7nMvM8K7JbWfUbPR7JSNrI75UjiNXQk0wslBfoOTvkMlRj5eMOZhps7DMGBRQTVAeT= d5vwXoQtDgS6zLCcJkrcO2S9MRSCC4f1I17SzgQJIwqo3LEwuN6lD-pkX0M=46LqGr2zzsHw5= eapd-VBlHu5reC4-OEn2zHkb7HNzS1pcue=466tsUE1v=46RsWs2SIOwU5MvbKe3J3Q6NRQ40= cHI1AGd-i/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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =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 --60f1c524_38437fdb_bde9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
True, but we are then assuming that the optical lin= ks are a mesh between satellites in the same plane, plus between planes. = =46rom an engineering problem point of view, keeping optical links in-pla= ne only makes the system extremely simpler (no full =46OV gimbals with th= e optical train in them, for example), and it solves the issue, as it is = highly likely that at least one satellite in any given plane will be with= in reach of a gateway.

Routing to an arbitrary gateway may involve passing via intermediate gate= ways, ground segments, and even using terminals as a hopping point.
=

Best,

Mike
On Jul 16, 2021, 19:38 +0200, David= Lang <david=40lang.hm>, wrote:
the speed of light in a vaccum is significantly better than the= speed of light
in fiber, so if you are doing a cross country hop, terminal -> sat -&g= t; sat -> sat
-> ground station (especially if the ground station is in the target d= atacenter)
can be faster than terminal -> sat -> ground station -> cross-co= untry fiber,
even accounting for the longer distance at 550km altitude than at ground = level.

This has interesting implications for supplementing/replacing undersea ca= bles as
the sats over the ocean are not going to be heavily used, dedicated groun= d
stations could be setup that use sats further offshore than normal (and a= re
shielded from sats over land) to leverage the system without interfering<= br /> significantly with more 'traditional' uses

David Lang

On =46ri, 16 Jul 2021, Mike Puchol wrote:

Date: =46ri, 16 Jul 2021 19:31:37 +0200
=46rom: Mike Puchol <mike=40starlink.sx>
To: David Lang <david=40lang.hm>, Nathan Owens <nathan=40nathan.= io>
Cc: =22starlink=40lists.bufferbloat.net=22 <starlink=40lists.bufferblo= at.net>,
David P. Reed <dpreed=40deepplum.com>
Subject: Re: =5BStarlink=5D Starlink and bufferbloat status=3F

Satellite optical links are useful to extend coverage to areas where you = don=E2=80=99t have gateways - thus, they will introduce additional latenc= y compared to two space segment hops (terminal to satellite -> satelli= te to gateway). If you have terminal to satellite, two optical hops, then= final satellite to gateway, you will have more latency, not less.

We are being =E2=80=9Csold=E2=80=9D optical links for what they are not I= MHO.

Best,

Mike
On Jul 16, 2021, 19:29 +0200, Nathan Owens <nathan=40nathan.io>, wr= ote:
As there are more satellites, the up down t= ime will get closer to 4-5ms rather then the =7E7ms you list

Possibly, if you do steering to always jump to the lowest latency satelli= te.

with laser relays in orbit, and terminal to= terminal routing in orbit, there is the potential for the theoretical mi= nimum to tend lower
Maybe for certain users really in the middle of nowhere, but I did the be= st-case math for =22bent pipe=22 in Seattle area, which is as good as it = gets.

On =46ri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:24 AM David La= ng <david=40lang.hm> wrote:
hey, it's a good attitude to have :-)
=
Elon tends to set 'impossible' goals, miss the timeline a bit, and come v= ery
close to the goal, if not exceed it.

As there are more staellites, the up down time will get closer to 4-5ms r= ather
then the =7E7ms you list, and with laser relays in orbit, and terminal to= terminal
routing in orbit, there is the potential for the theoretical minimum to t= end
lower, giving some headroom for other overhead but still being in the 20m= s
range.

David Lang

&=23160; On =46ri, 16 Jul 2021, Nathan Owens wrote:

Elon said =22foolish packet routing=22 for = things over 20ms=21 Which seems crazy
if you do some basic math:

&=23160; &=23160;- Sat to User Terminal distance: 550-950km air/vacuum: 1= .9 - 3.3ms
&=23160; &=23160;- Sat to GW distance: 550-950km air/vacuum: 1.9 - 3.3ms<= br /> &=23160; &=23160;- GW to PoP Distance: 50-800km fiber: 0.25 - 4ms
&=23160; &=23160;- PoP to Internet Distance: 50km fiber: 0.25 - 0.5ms
&=23160; &=23160;- Total one-way delay: 4.3 - 11.1ms
&=23160; &=23160;- Theoretical minimum RTT: 8.6ms - 22.2ms, call it 15.4m= s

This includes no transmission delay, queuing delay,
processing/fragmentation/reassembly/etc, and no time-division multiplexin= g.

On =46ri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:09 AM David Lang <david=40lang.hm> wro= te:

I think it depends on if you are looking at= datacenter-to-datacenter
latency of
home to remote datacenter latency :-)

my rule of thumb for cross US ping time has been 80-100ms latency (but it's been
a few years since I tested it).

I note that an article I saw today said that Elon is saying that latency<= br /> will
improve significantly in the near future, that up/down latency is =7E20ms=
and the
additional delays pushing it to the 80ms range are 'stupid packet routing= '
problems that they are working on.

If they are still in that level of optimization, it doesn't surprise me that
they haven't really focused on the bufferbloat issue, they have more
obvious
stuff to fix first.

David Lang


&=23160; &=23160;On =46ri, 16 Jul 2021, Wheelock, Ian wrote:

Date: =46ri, 16 Jul 2021 10:21:52 +0000
=46rom: =22Wheelock, Ian=22 <ian.wheelock=40commscope.com>
To: David Lang <david=40lang.hm>, David P. Reed <dpreed=40deeppl= um.com>
Cc: =22starlink=40lists.bufferbloat.net=22 <starlink=40lists.bufferblo= at.net>
Subject: Re: =5BStarlink=5D Starlink and bufferbloat status=3F

Hi David
In terms of the Latency that David (Reed) mentioned for California to
Massachusetts of about 17ms over the public internet, it seems a bit fast= er
than what I would expect. My own traceroute via my VDSL link shows 14ms just to get out of the operator network.

https://www.wondernetwork.com&=23160; is a handy tool for checking geogra= phic
ping perf between cities, and it shows a min of about 66ms for pings
between Boston and San Diego
https://wondernetwork.com/pings/boston/San%20Diego (so about 33ms for
1-way transfer).

Distance wise this is about 4,100 KM (2,500 M), and =402/3 speed of light=
(through a pure fibre link of that distance) the propagation time is just=
over 20ms. If the network equipment between the Boston and San Diego is factored in, with some buffering along the way, 33ms does seem quite
reasonable over the 20ms for speed of light in fibre for that 1-way trans= fer

-Ian Wheelock

=46rom: Starlink <starlink-bounces=40lists.bufferbloat.net> on beha= lf of
David Lang <david=40lang.hm>
Date: =46riday 9 July 2021 at 23:59
To: =22David P. Reed=22 <dpreed=40deepplum.com>
Cc: =22starlink=40lists.bufferbloat.net=22 <starlink=40lists.bufferblo= at.net>
Subject: Re: =5BStarlink=5D Starlink and bufferbloat status=3F

IIRC, the definition of 'low latency' for the =46CC was something like
100ms, and Musk was predicting <40ms. roughly competitive with landlin= es,
and worlds better than geostationary satellite (and many
External (mailto:david=40lang.hm)

https://shared.outlook.inky.com/report=3Fid=3DY29tbXNjb3BlL2lhbi53aGVlbG9= ja0Bjb21tc2NvcGUuY29tL2I1Mz=46jZDA4OTZmMWI0Yzc5NzdiOTIzNmY3MTAzM2MxLzE2Mj= U4NzE1NDkuNjU=3D=23key=3D19e8545676e28e577c813de83a4cf1dc
&=23160; https://www.inky.com/banner-faq/&=23160; https://www.inky.com

IIRC, the definition of 'low latency' for the =46CC was something like
100ms, and
Musk was predicting <40ms.

roughly competitive with landlines, and worlds better than geostationary<= br /> satellite (and many wireless ISPs)

but when doing any serious testing of latency, you need to be wired to
the
router, wifi introduces so much variability= that it swamps the signal.

David Lang

On =46ri, 9 Jul 2021, David P. Reed wrote:

Date: =46ri, 9 Jul 2021 14:40:01 -0400 (EDT= )
=46rom: David P. Reed <dpreed=40deepplum.com>
To: starlink=40lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: =5BStarlink=5D Starlink and bufferbloat status=3F


Early measurements of performance of Starlink have shown significant
bufferbloat, as Dave Taht has shown.

But...&=23160; Starlink is a moving target. The bufferbloat isn't a hardw= are
issue, it should be completely manageable, starting by simple firmware changes inside the Starlink system itself. =46or example, implementing fq=5Fcodel so that bottleneck links just drop packets according to the Be= st
Practices R=46C,

So I'm hoping this has improved since Dave's measurements. How much has
it improved=3F What's the current maximum packet latency under full
= load,&=23160; Ive heard anecdotally that a friend of a friend gets 84 mse= c. *ping
times under full load*, but he wasn't using flent or some other measureme= nt
tool of good quality that gives a true number.

84 msec is not great - it's marginal for Zoom quality experience (you
want latencies significantly less than 100 msec. as a rule of thumb for teleconferencing quality). But it is better than Dave's measurements show= ed.

Now Musk bragged that his network was =22low latency=22 unlike other high=
speed services, which means low end-to-end latency.&=23160; That got him<= br /> permission from the =46CC to operate Starlink at all. His number was, I think, < 5 msec. 84 is a lot more than 5. (I didn't believe 5, because= he
probably meant just the time from the ground station to the terminal
through the satellite. But I regularly get 17 msec. between California an= d
Massachusetts over the public Internet)

So 84 might be the current status. That would mean that someone at
<= /blockquote>
Srarlink might be paying some attention, but it is a long way from what Musk implied.


PS: I forget the number of the R=46C, but the number of packets queued on=
an egress link should be chosen by taking the hardware bottleneck
throughput of any path, combined with an end-to-end Internet underlying delay of about 10 msec. to account for hops between source and destinatio= n.
Lets say Starlink allocates 50 Mb/sec to each customer, packets are limit= ed
to 10,000 bits (1500 * 8), so the outbound queues should be limited to about 0.01 * 50,000,000 / 10,000, which comes out to about 250 packets fr= om
each terminal of buffering, total, in the path from terminal to public Internet, assuming the connection to the public Internet is not a problem= .
=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://secure-web.cisco.com/1sNc=5F-1HhGCW7xdirt=5FlAoAy5Nn5T6UA85Scjn5B= R7QHXtumhrf6RKn78SuRJG7DUKI3duggU9g6hJKW-Ze07HTczYqB9mBpIeALqk5drQ7nMvM8K= 7JbWfUbPR7JSNrI75UjiNXQk0wslBfoOTvkMlRj5eMOZhps7DMGBRQTVAeTd5vwXoQtDgS6zL= CcJkrcO2S9MRSCC4f1I17SzgQJIwqo3LEwuN6lD-pkX0M=46LqGr2zzsHw5eapd-VBlHu5reC= 4-OEn2zHkb7HNzS1pcue=466tsUE1v=46RsWs2SIOwU5MvbKe3J3Q6NRQ40cHI1AGd-i/http= s://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
<= /blockquote> 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
--60f1c524_38437fdb_bde9--