Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad.
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 12:35:59 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4o116qp9-6108-91r8-pn91-o37o6629npqo@ynat.uz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJEhh73R-9hZ3_C6ause9GezdHKPMrvtmHeodoykN6fMZgqP6Q@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4543 bytes --]

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
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 149 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

  reply	other threads:[~2023-08-30 19:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
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 [this message]
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  1:08                             ` [Starlink] [Sat-int] " Jorge Amodio
2023-09-19  1:25                               ` David Lang
2023-09-21  7:58                               ` emile.stephan
2023-09-21 12:37                               ` Alexandre Petrescu
2023-09-19 13:44                           ` [Starlink] " 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
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-10-16 13:26 David Fernández
2023-10-18 15:04 ` Alexandre Petrescu
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 12:02 Hesham ElBakoury

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/starlink.lists.bufferbloat.net/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4o116qp9-6108-91r8-pn91-o37o6629npqo@ynat.uz \
    --to=david@lang.hm \
    --cc=alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com \
    --cc=inemesitaffia@gmail.com \
    --cc=starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox