From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lang.hm (unknown [66.167.227.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1F493B29E for ; Wed, 24 May 2023 20:17:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dlang-mobile (unknown [10.2.2.69]) by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA4BA191583; Wed, 24 May 2023 17:17:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 17:17:11 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang To: Ulrich Speidel cc: Mark Handley , "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7079qr6p-07ss-03q0-7so0-21527r78rrnr@ynat.uz> References: <0no84q43-s4n6-45n8-50or-12o3rq104n99@ynat.uz> <48b00469-0dbb-54c4-bedb-3aecbf714a1a@auckland.ac.nz> <728orr66-1432-751p-263q-sqopr12s20sq@ynat.uz> <077e6ad1-d7cc-2d57-39f8-e9646bea32a5@auckland.ac.nz> <09552rq0-0n24-0pqo-4085-n918r0n71138@ynat.uz> <9q29o7n2-69rs-3os1-s93q-0795262qs3o1@ynat.uz> <1c9df33b-e964-f531-7326-1a11b159e6a7@auckland.ac.nz> <624969fc-29ee-4fcf-963a-34afa95b6bc2@app.fastmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="===============4717250054481807293==" Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink hidden buffers 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: Thu, 25 May 2023 00:17:12 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --===============4717250054481807293== Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 25 May 2023, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink wrote: > Also, I don't get the impression that path latency minimisation is top > priority for Starlink. My impression is that as long as RTT is what you might > see on a terrestrial connection to the other side of the globe, it's good > enough for Starlink. I agree, I don't think they have latency as one of their top priorities. I think they are focusing on expanding the network and jusst increasing bandwidth. I think having multiple satellites servicing a single cell is a much higher priority than minimizing latency). I also think that in-space-routing is a higher priority than minimizing latency. But I think latency is something they care about, just not their top priority. As long as it's "good enough" they are working on other things (and "good enough" is not fiber-connected good, but more like slow-dsl-good) It's important to keep the market in mind, they aren't aiming the service at people who can get high speed DSL/Cable/Fiber, they are aiming it at the people who can't, who get slow DSL, dialup, cell service (LTE, not 5G), wireless ISPs, or do without. David Lang --===============4717250054481807293== Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 Content-ID: <7s8410r6-spn4-24op-4op2-41s93oss7ono@ynat.uz> Content-Description: Content-Disposition: INLINE X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KU3Rhcmxpbmsg bWFpbGluZyBsaXN0ClN0YXJsaW5rQGxpc3RzLmJ1ZmZlcmJsb2F0Lm5ldApodHRwczovL2xpc3Rz LmJ1ZmZlcmJsb2F0Lm5ldC9saXN0aW5mby9zdGFybGluawo= --===============4717250054481807293==--