Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad.
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of Satellites and Terrestial Networks
@ 2023-10-16 13:26 David Fernández
  2023-10-18 15:04 ` Alexandre Petrescu
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: David Fernández @ 2023-10-16 13:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: starlink

Regarding this: "The SDA standard (:
https://www.sda.mil/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/SDA-OCT-Standard-v3.0.pdf)
requires beaconless PAT without a side channel to sync the two OCTs,
which makes things much harder. Acquisition times are longer, and
initial pointing requires extremely accurate knowledege of the
position of the other side, which greatly increases cost."

Following the example of the SDA (Space Development Agency), ESA has
also now an optical link specification for 2.5 Gbps, 10 Gbps and 100 /
200 /400 Gbps per channel consolidated with the help of 18 European
industries.

See the link to ESTOL (ESA Specification for Terabit/sec Optical
Links) here: https://www.esa.int/Applications/Connectivity_and_Secure_Communications/European_space_firms_set_specifications_for_optical_links

The ESTOL follows the PAT process of SDA due to compatibility with
existing European terminal suppliers.

The ‘beaconless’ PAT is not necessarily performing worse than having a
side channel; it simply means that the communications wavelength is
used also for initial acquisition and then for tracking.
This is also the approach in EDRS
(https://connectivity.esa.int/european-data-relay-satellite-system-edrs-overview)
and actually SDA has formalized the EDRS approach.

The separate wavelength (or beacon) may provide some advantages in
space to ground links rather than space-space ISLs.

Starlink optical ISL at 100G is most likely reusing the terrestrial
fibre optics COTS transceivers in space, as planned to do by Hydron
(https://connectivity.esa.int/developing-future-optical-highcapacity-satellite-networks-hydron-high-throughput-optical-network)
and ESTOL.

Regards,

David

> Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2023 20:44:06 -0700
> From: Mike Puchol <mike@starlink.sx>
> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of
> 	Satellites and Terrestial Networks
> Message-ID: <8070d746-1aa0-45a6-8b0f-9bc4f01d1c8d@Spark>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> The ETSI standard you reference is a generic framework for testing &
> measuring earth stations connecting to NGSO systems, so they may be using
> it, but it’s not mandatory. In any case, the standard doesn’t have any
> effect on the RF characteristics, the interoperability, etc.
>
> Regarding ISL, I would doubt they use the SDA OCT standard, except maybe for
> Starshield payloads. The SDA standard requires beaconless PAT without a side
> channel to sync the two OCTs, which makes things much harder. Acquisition
> times are longer, and initial pointing requires extremely accurate
> knowledege of the position of the other side, which greatly increases cost.
>
> Best,
>
> Mike
> On Sep 2, 2023 at 18:03 -0700, David Fernández via Starlink
> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>, wrote:
>> It seems that Starlink follows this norm, although it does not reflect
>> the entire Starlink system specification:
>> https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/303900_303999/303981/01.02.00_30/en_303981v010200v.pdf
>>
>> Then, for the ISL, I suppose they are following this:
>> https://www.sda.mil/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/SDA-OCT-Standard-v3.0.pdf
>>
>> > Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 17:27:30 +0100
>> > From: Inemesit Affia <inemesitaffia@gmail.com>
>> > To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>> > Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>,
>> > starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> > Subject: Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of
>> > Satellites and Terrestial Networks
>> > Message-ID:
>> > <CAJEhh70CMSk_WAmd9sgXfMDoWZhhz5uPAU=d5UG3rW5XFkw1KQ@mail.gmail.com>
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > Any antenna that connects with OneWeb should theoretically work apart
>> > from
>> > the DRM
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 8:36 PM David Lang <david@lang.hm> 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
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/20230902/9209f929/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of Satellites and Terrestial Networks
@ 2023-09-19 14:55 David Fernández
  2023-09-19 15:15 ` David Lang
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: David Fernández @ 2023-09-19 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: starlink

"I don't see everything, but the news I've heard has been primarily
other companies trying to use regulations to block Starlink, not a
basis for cooperation"

You may have missed this:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/13/spacex-starlink-partners-with-ses-for-combined-cruise-market-service.html

I understand that Starlink is combined as another link, using SD-WAN,
as explained here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDM-_MTnRTg

I would expect only latency critical traffic, such as voice and video
calls, to be sent via Starlink, while emails or text messages go via
GEO satellite links.

Regards,

David

> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
> To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury <helbakoury@gmail.com>, David Lang
> 	<david@lang.hm>,  Dave Taht via Starlink
> 	<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>, sat-int@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of
> 	Satellites and Terrestial Networks
> Message-ID: <35r3366r-5pr2-83no-716o-7o4r2820n9pn@ynat.uz>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2023, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>
>> Le 19/09/2023 à 02:36, Hesham ElBakoury a écrit :
>> [...]
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023, 5:31 PM David Lang <david@lang.hm
>> [...]
>>
>>> Starlink is just another IP path,
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> For IPv6 it might not be that simple.  There can be things suggested to
>> starlink to implement, such as to make it better from an IPv6
>> standpoint.  That includes, and is not limited to, this /64 aspect.
>>
>> For IP in general (be it IPv4 or IPv6), as long as starlink stays
>> closed, there might be no interest to suggest anything about IP that
>> they have not already thought of.
>
> Personally, I think that it's more a situation that they are doing something
> that nobody else has done (at least on anything close to this scale) so they
> are
> scrambling to make it work and finding things that the rest of us are just
> speculating about.
>
>> IF on the other hand, starlink feels a need to interoperate, then we can
>> discuss.
>
> interoperate with what is the question.
>
> Interoperate with other ground stations?
>
> include other companies satellites in their space based routing?
>
> Right now there isn't a lot in the way of other space based routing for them
> to
> possibly be interoperable with, and other systems have been actively hostile
> to
> Starlink (I don't know if it's mutual or not, I don't see everything, but
> the
> news I've heard has been primarily other companies trying to use regulations
> to
> block Starlink, not a basis for cooperation)
>
> I also think that it's a bit early to push for standardization of the links.
> We
> don't have enough experience to know what really works on this sort of scale
> and
> dynamic connection environment.
>
>> It is possible that starlink does not feel any need to interoperate now.
>> At that point, the need to interoperate might come as a mandate from
>> some outside factors.  Such factors could be the public-private
>> cooperations.  Other factors could be partnerships that appear when some
>> organisations feel the need to cooperate.  I will not speculate when,
>> but it happens.
>>
>> Assuming that such openness appears, with a need to interoperate, then
>> there certainly will be perspective developped where Starlink is not
>> just another IP path.
>>
>>> all the tools that you use with any other ISP work on that path (or
>>> are restricted like many other consumer ISPs with dynamic addressing,
>>> no inbound connections, no BGP peering, etc. No reason that the those
>>> couldn't work, SpaceX just opts not to support them on consumer
>>> dishes)
>>
>> But, these other ISPs (not Starlink) are all standardized.
>
> they are now, but they have not been in the past, and nothing prevents a
> networking vendor from introducing new proprietary things that only work on
> their equipment and are (hopefully) transparent to users. We actually see
> this
> with caching, 'wan accelerators', captive portals, etc
>
>>> I'll turn the question back to you, what is the problem that you think is
>>>
>>> there that needs to be solved?
>>
>> Here is one, but there are potentially more.  I would not close the door
>> to
>> searching them.
>>
>> I dont have DISHY, so no first hand experience.
>>
>> But I suspect the IPv6 it supports it is an IPv6 encapsulated in IPv4.
>> That
>> adds to latency, not to say bufferbloat.  It brings in a single point of
>> failure too (if it fails, then all fails).
>
> is there some testing that I can do to help you with this?
>
> personally, I suspect that even IPv4 is encapsulated in some way.
>
>> Then, when they'll want to remove that they'd hit into the /64 issue.
>
> I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to here, sorry.
>
> David Lang
>
>> Alex
>>>
>>> David Lang
>>>
>>>> Thanks, Hesham
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Sep 17, 2023, 12:59 PM David Lang via Starlink <
>>>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> it's very clear that there is a computer in the dishy that you
>>> are talking
>>>>> to. You get the network connection while the dishy is not connected
>>> to the
>>>>> satellites (there's even a status page and controls, stowing and
>>> unstowing
>>>>> for example)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we've seen that the dishy is running linux (I know the
>>> routers run
>>>>> an old openwrt), but I don't remember the details of the dishy
>>> software.
>>>>>
>>>>> David Lang
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2023 19:21:50 +0200 From: Alexandre Petrescu via
>>>>>> Starlink
>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>>
>>>>>> Reply-To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>>
>>>>>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of
>>>>> Satellites and
>>>>>> Terrestial Networks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 16/09/2023 à 01:32, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink a écrit :
>>>>>>> On 16/09/2023 5:52 am, David Lang wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In addition to that Ulrich says, the dishy is a full
>>> computer, it's
>>>>>>>> output is ethernet/IP and with some adapters or cable
>>> changes, you
>>>>>>>> can plug it directly into a router.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We've done that with the Yaosheng PoE Dishy adapter - actually
>>> plugged
>>>>>>> a DHCP client straight in - and it "works" but with a noticeably
>>>>>>> higher
>>>>>>> rate of disconnects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is good to know one can plug a DHCP client into the Ethernet
>>> of the
>>>>>> DISHY and receive DHCP replies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that would be only a lead into what kind of DHCPv4 is
>>> supported, or
>>>>> not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would ask to know whether the DHCP server runs on the DISHY, or
>>>>>> whether it is on the ground network of starlink, i.e. the reply
>>> to DHCP
>>>>>> request comes after 50ms, or after 500microseconds (timestamp
>>> difference
>>>>>> can be seen in the wireshark run on that Ethernet).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This (DHCP server daemon on dishy or on ground segment) has an
>>> impact of
>>>>>> how IPv6  can be, or is, made to work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This kind of behaviour of DHCP - basically asking who
>>>>>> allocates an address - has seen a continous evolution in 3GPP
>>>>>> cellular
>>> networks since
>>>>>> they appeared.  Nowadays the DHCP behaviour is very complex in
>>> a 3GPP
>>>>>> network; even in a typical smartphone there are intricacies
>>> about where
>>>>>> and how the DHCP client and server works. With it comes the
>>> problem of
>>>>>> /64 in cellular networks (which some dont call a problem, but I
>>> do).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, it would be interesting to see whether starlink has the
>>> same /64
>>>>>> problem as 3GPP has, or is free of it (simply put: can I
>>> connect several
>>>>>> Ethernet subnets in my home to starlink, in native IPv6 that is, or
>>>>> not?).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Starlink mailing list
>>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of Satellites and Terrestial Networks
@ 2023-09-03  1:03 David Fernández
  2023-09-03  3:44 ` Mike Puchol
  2023-09-15 11:35 ` Alexandre Petrescu
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: David Fernández @ 2023-09-03  1:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: starlink

It seems that Starlink follows this norm, although it does not reflect
the entire Starlink system specification:
https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/303900_303999/303981/01.02.00_30/en_303981v010200v.pdf

Then, for the ISL, I suppose they are following this:
https://www.sda.mil/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/SDA-OCT-Standard-v3.0.pdf

> Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 17:27:30 +0100
> From: Inemesit Affia <inemesitaffia@gmail.com>
> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
> Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>,
> 	starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of
> 	Satellites and Terrestial Networks
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAJEhh70CMSk_WAmd9sgXfMDoWZhhz5uPAU=d5UG3rW5XFkw1KQ@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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.
>
> Any antenna that connects with OneWeb should theoretically work apart from
> the DRM
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 8:36 PM David Lang <david@lang.hm> 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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of Satellites and Terrestial Networks
@ 2023-08-31 16:12 David Fernández
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: David Fernández @ 2023-08-31 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: starlink

I have not seen a report, it is a couple of web pages to read, isn't it?

Just my two cents:
"Standards are the distilled wisdom of people with expertise in their
subject matter and who know the needs of the organizations they
represent – people such as manufacturers, sellers, buyers, customers,
trade associations, users or regulators.
Standards are knowledge. They are powerful tools that can help drive
innovation and increase productivity. They can make organizations more
successful and people’s everyday lives easier, safer and healthier."
https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/standards/Information-about-standards/what-is-a-standard

Look to what is reported about Rohde & Schwarz and Satixfy in the
Satellite 2023 about the DVB-S2X and DVB-RCS2 standards. I think that
the satellite industry has standards (DVB-S2X being the most notable
example), and these standards are not going to be replaced by 5G NTN,
3GPP ones, so easily. In any case, the 3GPP has defined since release
16 the N3IWF and the ATSSS with MPTCP, which is kind of standardized
way of doing the same that can be done with SDWAN (propietary
technologies): https://romars.tech/en/pubblications/n3iwf/
https://romars.tech/en/pubblications/atsss/
In the case of 5G NTN, if I think that the idea is that the terminal
is doing roaming between the terrestrial and the satellite network,
managing the links as when you have multiple SIM cards in the mobile.

Finally, related to the use of standards, I have been recently very
disappointed to see that this service is using a non-standard return
link, preventing Router Freedom for SATCOM users:
https://fsfe.org/activities/routers/routers.en.html

New GEO based Internet access for rural areas in Spain (Hispasat)
sponsored by Government

Up to 4 million subscribers are entitled all around the country, in
areas where there is not any terrestrial network providing Internet
access at least at 50 Mbit/s, and there are quite a few spots:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/a1efc4ec0e4b42ad90274ad6febb1608/

100 Mbit/s downlink DVB-S2X, non-standard? MF-TDMA uplink at 5 Mbit/s
/ 10 Mbit/s

Hughes modems: https://conectate35.es/#equipamiento

35 euros/month, 150 GB.

Average total (monthly?) maximum latency: 690 ms (two way?) (VoIP compatible)

99.5% availability

https://conectate35.es/#servicio

Regards,

David

> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 12:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
> To: Inemesit Affia <inemesitaffia@gmail.com>
> Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>,
> 	starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of
> 	Satellites and Terrestial Networks
> Message-ID: <4o116qp9-6108-91r8-pn91-o37o6629npqo@ynat.uz>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; Format="flowed"
>
> 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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of Satellites and Terrestial Networks
@ 2023-08-31 15:51 David Fernández
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: David Fernández @ 2023-08-31 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: starlink

The use of MPTCP on satellite links has been analyzed here (for
example) and the use of PEPs in GEO satellite links prevent the use of
MPTCP:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-mptcp-mptcp-satellite-01#page=13&zoom=auto,-91,32

Another option could be MPQUIC (still in development AFAIK),

I have been told in the past that a tighter integration of satellite
and terrestrial networks is required mainly for business purposes
(billing).

Regards,

David

> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 17:51:37 +0100
> From: Inemesit Affia <inemesitaffia@gmail.com>
> To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of
> 	Satellites and Terrestial Networks
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAJEhh73R-9hZ3_C6ause9GezdHKPMrvtmHeodoykN6fMZgqP6Q@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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
>> >

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of Satellites and Terrestial Networks
@ 2023-08-30 12:10 Hesham ElBakoury
  2023-08-30 13:57 ` Alexandre Petrescu
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Hesham ElBakoury @ 2023-08-30 12:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: starlink

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1887 bytes --]

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?

Hesham

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2328 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of Satellites and Terrestial Networks
@ 2023-08-30 12:02 Hesham ElBakoury
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Hesham ElBakoury @ 2023-08-30 12:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dave Taht via Starlink

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1889 bytes --]

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?

Hesham

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2237 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-10-18 15:04 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-10-16 13:26 [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of Satellites and Terrestial Networks David Fernández
2023-10-18 15:04 ` Alexandre Petrescu
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-09-19 14:55 David Fernández
2023-09-19 15:15 ` David Lang
2023-09-20  8:09   ` Alexandre Petrescu
2023-09-20  8:32     ` David Lang
2023-09-03  1:03 David Fernández
2023-09-03  3:44 ` Mike Puchol
2023-09-15 11:35 ` Alexandre Petrescu
2023-08-31 16:12 David Fernández
2023-08-31 15:51 David Fernández
2023-08-30 12:10 Hesham ElBakoury
2023-08-30 13:57 ` Alexandre Petrescu
2023-08-30 16:51   ` Inemesit Affia
2023-08-30 19:35     ` David Lang
2023-09-01 16:27       ` Inemesit Affia
2023-09-15 11:29         ` Alexandre Petrescu
2023-09-15 15:18           ` Ulrich Speidel
2023-09-15 17:52             ` David Lang
2023-09-15 23:32               ` Ulrich Speidel
2023-09-17 17:21                 ` Alexandre Petrescu
2023-09-17 19:58                   ` David Lang
2023-09-18 23:32                     ` Hesham ElBakoury
2023-09-19  0:31                       ` David Lang
2023-09-19  0:36                         ` Hesham ElBakoury
2023-09-19  1:01                           ` David Lang
2023-09-19 13:44                           ` Alexandre Petrescu
2023-09-19 14:36                             ` David Lang
2023-09-19 13:35                       ` Alexandre Petrescu
2023-09-19 14:44                         ` David Lang
2023-09-17 17:12               ` Alexandre Petrescu
2023-09-17 17:09             ` Alexandre Petrescu
2023-09-17 18:06               ` Steve Stroh
2023-08-31  8:44     ` Alexandre Petrescu
2023-08-31 11:39       ` David Lang
2023-08-30 12:02 Hesham ElBakoury

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox