and I have mwan3 on my openwrt router that routes traffic between different ISPs. I haven't added my starlink to it as a 3rd ISP yet, but intend to. Nothing special there, and it wouldn't really matter that it's a satellite system vs a wireless ISP vs a different wired ISP. But yes, that is a little bit of cooperation. ( I was thinking more of the other LEO ISPs, onelink and Amazon) David Lang On Tue, 19 Sep 2023, David Fernández via Starlink wrote: > "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 >> To: Alexandre Petrescu >> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury , David Lang >> , Dave Taht via Starlink >> , 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 >> [...] >>> >>>> 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 >>>> > 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 >>>> > >>>>>>> Reply-To: Alexandre Petrescu >>> > >>>>>>> To: 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 >>>> >>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >>>> >> > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink