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 A33B33B29E for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 06:15:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from proxy-2.proxy.oxio.ns.xion.oxcs.net (proxy-2.proxy.oxio.ns.xion.oxcs.net [197.248.130.130]) by mx-out.dclux.xion.oxcs.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3B89D8C0380; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 11:15:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dclux.xion.oxcs.net; s=mail1; t=1645528507; bh=G58knnSnTbNNYyX81EXBlnw6JCGp2Pclq7HlkleYFN8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=aEcT6EpDzq4mniB205e3VElKR6sF/kiUF5/nzpcJ/eXxuyuwQ1ZgzJR7IS2rjnFb1 j/3uu7fdZgW9BKtIu4bJJibfoxzvD3iq2KLoj23P2ytDSphbh9hxS+c+kHwbZmK3mi Y3AcOvOxtU9dCYjC5UQLtCt8JPA8HqEgfSjMa/cPQ8WlGT8bSGSJn4uBAdhFmr+M81 zjY25b4VwiZRaF+LJGgqBMXhmcKJtBSEfXxeL5PaPNjaxxi2QIskTsMHhVi7geXo3i jRgRRIvOfrOjbWH/N40uVocNW1Fc9fxpM3kcWzyQfGrdOiaCB/xIfRMMyfCziP44mH wcyBw+zj6aiTA== Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 14:14:52 +0300 From: Mike Puchol To: Vint Cerf Cc: Sebastian Moeller , starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net, Daniel AJ Sokolov Message-ID: <6a23a7ee-b5e6-44c8-9dc6-6fdd1d7fb46b@Spark> In-Reply-To: References: <1p492142-q944-r494-6s6r-p6q37s57qnq4@ynat.uz> <1F1EB112F8CB446FAB4BF308A76955FA@SRA6> <0ac195f5-3668-4c96-8dec-8a2d59a0bd52@Spark> <866405-s043-n12n-6pqs-46o38r189218@ynat.uz> <38pr9p5s-3ro4-49p9-9535-7o92oqrq62r1@ynat.uz> <80753e77-f7ba-466f-8222-66c16059f600@Spark> <66B75B7A-82DF-4A92-BC74-CB0422E2BABC@gmx.de> <0ecefa3c-da5c-48c6-b60d-e2e121d1319c@Spark> <282F58AF-C9A9-4438-AB82-34C717384DBE@gmx.de> X-Readdle-Message-ID: 6a23a7ee-b5e6-44c8-9dc6-6fdd1d7fb46b@Spark MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="6214c5b2_3855585c_2ed6" X-VadeSecure-Status: LEGIT X-VADE-STATUS: LEGIT Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming 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, 22 Feb 2022 11:15:08 -0000 --6214c5b2_3855585c_2ed6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Thank you for noticing the totally unintended pun=21 :-) Best, Mike On =46eb 22, 2022, 13:37 +0300, Vint Cerf , wrote: > pun intended=3F > Mynaric is one of the more visible ones. > > :-) > > v > > > > > On Tue, =46eb 22, 2022 at 5:01 AM Mike Puchol wr= ote: > > > It all depends on the power. We operate =46SOC terminals that can d= o 20 Gbps at 20km+, and are eye-safe (un-aided, if you look at one using = binoculars, different story). > > > > > > Power also depends on receiver sensitivity, if you can reconstruct = a signal from less photons, your power requirements drop, and efficiency = increases. There is a lot of research going on in this field, and there a= re many companies that are trying to get into the ground-to-air optical l= ink game. Mynaric is one of the more visible ones. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Mike > > > On =46eb 22, 2022, 12:46 +0300, Sebastian Moeller , wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On =46eb 22, 2022, at 10:40, Mike Puchol w= rote: > > > > > > > > > > The optical links work in IR spectrum, so non-visible. They wou= ld not be a concern for aircraft the same way green lasers are. > > > > > > > > Puzzled. IR lasers still wreck havoc when hitting the eye/retina,= so why are these considered safer than visible spectrum lasers=3F In a l= ab context IR lasers are typically considered more dangerous as they are = invisible and hence harder to see/avoid. I am happy to believe that there= is a reason why they are safer, just trying ot reconcile that with my la= ser-safety seminar ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > > On David=E2=80=99s comment =22but if you can easily route traff= ic to a ground station that's further away and not currently saturated=E2= =80=9D, that is true as long as the path that is connected over ISL has v= isibility of that other ground station. I will add ISL to my tracker shor= tly so we can start simulating these things. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > On =46eb 22, 2022, 12:04 +0300, Sebastian Moeller , wrote: > > > > > > Intersting=21 > > > > > > > > > > > > Silly question, giving that there are already law suits for p= eople pointing lasers at airplanes, how are these commercial laster termi= nals avoiding that issue=3F > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Sebastian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On =46eb 22, 2022, at 08:42, Mike Puchol wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did over-simplify so the point was better understood. On = the optical gateways, these exist already: https://mynaric.com/products/g= round-capabilities/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once you have an optical mesh in orbit, the only practical = way to provide it with massive capacity is optical links - there isn=E2=80= =99t enough radio spectrum that would do it (without a massive ground gat= eway network with enough physical separation). You can create a network o= f optical gateways that guarantees a number of them will not be impared b= y cloud cover at any given time. Optical has the advantage of being licen= se-free, too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > On =46eb 22, 2022, 10:20 +0300, Dick Roy , wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =46rom: Starlink =5Bmailto:starlink-bounces=40lists.buffe= rbloat.net=5D On Behalf Of Mike Puchol > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, =46ebruary 21, 2022 9:35 PM > > > > > > > > To: Daniel AJ Sokolov; David Lang > > > > > > > > Cc: starlink=40lists.bufferbloat.net > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: =5BStarlink=5D Starlink Roaming > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, laser links would make gateway connectivity *wo= rse*. If we take the scenario attached, one gateway is suddenly having to= serve traffic from all UTs that were not previously under coverage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A satellite under full load can saturate two gateway link= s by itself. If you load, say, 20 satellites in an orbital plane, onto a = single gateway, over ISL, you effectively have 5% of each satellite=E2=80= =99s capacity available (given an equal distribution of demand, of course= there will be satellites with no UTs to cover etc.). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =5BRR=5D I think to do this analysis correctly; one needs= to consider the larger system and the time-varying loads on the componen= ts thereof. What you say is true; just a bit over-simplified to be maxima= lly useful. Routing through complex congested networks is well-studied pr= oblem and hnts at possible solutions can probably be found thereJ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eventually they will go for optical gateways, it=E2=80=99= s the only way to get enough capacity to the constellation, specially the= 30k satellite version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =5BRR=5D What do you mean by =E2=80=9C=E2=80=9Doptical ga= teway=E2=80=9D=3F An optical link from the satellite to the ground statio= n=3F That would be real expensive at least power-wise and unreliable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On =46eb 22, 2022, 05:17 +0300, David Lang , wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 21 =46eb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be= degraded a > > > > > > > > bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming = capabilities in > > > > > > > > the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will en= able a lot more > > > > > > > > flexibility) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't that a very optimistic assessment=3F :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Laser links are great for remote locations with very few = users, but how > > > > > > > > could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with = too many users=3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The laser links can reduce the required density of ground= stations, but > > > > > > > > they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground statio= n not built > > > > > > > > thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations = - and, maybe > > > > > > > > more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does ev= entually > > > > > > > > connect to a ground station. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they= just a small > > > > > > > > help here and there=3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible= to route the traffic > > > > > > > > from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that= I'm registered with as > > > > > > > > opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I mov= e to far from my > > > > > > > > registered location, I need to talk to a different ground= station. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. satellite bandwidth > > > > > > > > 2. ground station bandwidth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the s= econd one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We know that they can do mobile dishes (they are testing = it currently on Elon's > > > > > > > > gulfstream, =46AR more mobile that I will ever be :-) ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David Lang > > > > > > > > =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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > =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 > > > -- > Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: > Vint Cerf > 1435 Woodhurst Blvd > McLean, VA 22102 > 703-448-0965 > > until further notice > > > --6214c5b2_3855585c_2ed6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Thank you for noticing the totally unintended pun=21= :-)

Best,

Mike
On =46eb 22, 2022, 13:37 +0300, Vin= t Cerf <vint=40google.com>, wrote:
pun intended=3F
Mynaric is one of the more visible ones.

:-)

v



On Tue, =46eb 22, 2022 at= 5:01 AM Mike Puchol <mike=40= starlink.sx> wrote:
It all depends on the power. We operate =46SOC term= inals that can do 20 Gbps at 20km+, and are eye-safe (un-aided, if you lo= ok at one using binoculars, different story).

Power also depends on receiver sensitivity, if you can reconstruct a sign= al from less photons, your power requirements drop, and efficiency increa= ses. There is a lot of research going on in this field, and there are man= y companies that are trying to get into the ground-to-air optical link ga= me. Mynaric is one of the more visible ones.

Best,

Mike
On =46eb 22, 2022, 12:46 +0300, Seb= astian Moeller <moeller0=40gmx.de>, wrote:


On =46eb 22, 2022, at 10:40, Mike Puchol &l= t;mike=40= starlink.sx> wrote:

The optical links work in IR spectrum, so non-visible. They would not be = a concern for aircraft the same way green lasers are.

Puzzled. IR lasers still wreck havoc when hitting the eye/retina, so why = are these considered safer than visible spectrum lasers=3F In a lab conte= xt IR lasers are typically considered more dangerous as they are invisibl= e and hence harder to see/avoid. I am happy to believe that there is a re= ason why they are safer, just trying ot reconcile that with my laser-safe= ty seminar ;)


On David=E2=80=99s comment =22but if you ca= n easily route traffic to a ground station that's further away and not cu= rrently saturated=E2=80=9D, that is true as long as the path that is conn= ected over ISL has visibility of that other ground station. I will add IS= L to my tracker shortly so we can start simulating these things.

Best,

Mike
On =46eb 22, 2022, 12:04 +0300, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0=40gmx.de>, = wrote:
Intersting=21

Silly question, giving that there are already law suits for people pointi= ng lasers at airplanes, how are these commercial laster terminals avoidin= g that issue=3F

Regards
Sebastian




On =46eb 22, 2022, at 08:42, Mike Puchol &l= t;mike=40= starlink.sx> wrote:

I did over-simplify so the point was better understood. On the optical ga= teways, these exist already: https://mynaric.com/product= s/ground-capabilities/

Once you have an optical mesh in orbit, the only practical way to provide= it with massive capacity is optical links - there isn=E2=80=99t enough r= adio spectrum that would do it (without a massive ground gateway network = with enough physical separation). You can create a network of optical gat= eways that guarantees a number of them will not be impared by cloud cover= at any given time. Optical has the advantage of being license-free, too.=

Best,

Mike
On =46eb 22, 2022, 10:20 +0300, Dick Roy <dickroy=40alum.mit.edu>, w= rote:


=46rom: Starlink =5Bmailto:starlink-bounces=40lists.buffer= bloat.net=5D On Behalf Of Mike Puchol
Sent: Monday, =46ebruary 21, 2022 9:35 PM
To: Daniel AJ Sokolov; David Lang
Cc: starlink=40lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: =5BStarlink=5D Starlink Roaming


Actually, laser links would make gateway connectivity *worse*. If we take= the scenario attached, one gateway is suddenly having to serve traffic f= rom all UTs that were not previously under coverage.

A satellite under full load can saturate two gateway links by itself. If = you load, say, 20 satellites in an orbital plane, onto a single gateway, = over ISL, you effectively have 5% of each satellite=E2=80=99s capacity av= ailable (given an equal distribution of demand, of course there will be s= atellites with no UTs to cover etc.).

=5BRR=5D I think to do this analysis correctly; one needs to consider the= larger system and the time-varying loads on the components thereof. What= you say is true; just a bit over-simplified to be maximally useful. Rout= ing through complex congested networks is well-studied problem and hnts a= t possible solutions can probably be found thereJ)



Eventually they will go for optical gateways, it=E2=80=99s the only way t= o get enough capacity to the constellation, specially the 30k satellite v= ersion.

=5BRR=5D What do you mean by =E2=80=9C=E2=80=9Doptical gateway=E2=80=9D=3F= An optical link from the satellite to the ground station=3F That would b= e real expensive at least power-wise and unreliable.


Best,

Mike

On =46eb 22, 2022, 05:17 +0300, David Lang <david=40lang.hm>, wrote:


On Mon, 21 =46eb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote:


On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote:



They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a
bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in<= br /> the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more<= br /> flexibility)


Isn't that a very optimistic assessment=3F :-)

Laser links are great for remote locations with very few users, but how could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with too many users=3F=

The laser links can reduce the required density of ground stations, but they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground station not built
thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations - and, maybe
more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does eventually
connect to a ground station.

Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a small help here and there=3F


My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route the tr= affic
from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm registered = with as
opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far from my=
registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station.

Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage:

1. satellite bandwidth
2. ground station bandwidth

laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the second one.
=
We know that they can do mobile dishes (they are testing it currently on = Elon's
gulfstream, =46AR more mobile that I will ever be :-) )

David Lang
=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
<= /blockquote>

=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/listi= nfo/starlink


--
Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
Vint Cerf
1435 Woodhurst Blvd&=23160;
McLean, VA 22102
703-448-0965

until further notice



--6214c5b2_3855585c_2ed6--