From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from vsmx002.dclux.xion.oxcs.net (vsmx002.dclux.xion.oxcs.net [185.74.65.108]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5207D3B29E for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2023 23:44:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from vsmx002.dclux.xion.oxcs.net (unknown [185.74.64.105]) by mx-out.dclux.xion.oxcs.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E59D8C0FCA for ; Sun, 3 Sep 2023 03:44:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from proxy-2.proxy.oxio.ham.xion.oxcs.net (proxy-2.proxy.oxio.ham.xion.oxcs.net [73.162.31.53]) by mx-out.dclux.xion.oxcs.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 852A38C8E34 for ; Sun, 3 Sep 2023 03:44:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dclux.xion.oxcs.net; s=mail1; t=1693712656; bh=iISSS9jqbwvYSpVabr4xScoZYlnh1OlPk+RUsNPko0E=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=PPSSRzsnb+xZvFJJ+bxevSWf8EQTkBMUAptpxo/AdJeaD7zvhiNCmqx0iAL8s1pIC vWMhnkIdg0pDZSaOJhIl9fLrRqzJuJ68XrsD6Vi4h+nbalWZ6cyP/UYX9mPvOIs0DE ku52Ked+W/+g6SLCH8wGVFKI4IzIdLqlMNKSLJp+c11YSEMPL9CaheqlqMxLyM7Rwl 3fWAYci3KfGDumZydiABM8CYT8/VtOpBQ42we1KUIlIR7i9jc+EOzD+SD7PQkl6Sw9 ZI1LjPhT5IShGklvEajT9NoEqVrMA1G5DWqOPIjZmQpyHSTgBwLTgtaISn3WpbVyrZ fe/pvPvnUMasA== Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2023 20:44:06 -0700 From: Mike Puchol To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net Message-ID: <8070d746-1aa0-45a6-8b0f-9bc4f01d1c8d@Spark> In-Reply-To: References: X-Readdle-Message-ID: 8070d746-1aa0-45a6-8b0f-9bc4f01d1c8d@Spark MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="64f4010b_7198bc87_2be" X-VadeSecure-Status: LEGIT X-VADE-STATUS: LEGIT Subject: Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of Satellites and Terrestial Networks 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: Sun, 03 Sep 2023 03:44:17 -0000 --64f4010b_7198bc87_2be Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline The ETSI standard you reference is a generic framework for testing & meas= uring earth stations connecting to NGSO systems, so they may be using it,= but it=E2=80=99s not mandatory. In any case, the standard doesn=E2=80=99= t have any effect on the R=46 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. Acq= uisition times are longer, and initial pointing requires extremely accura= te knowledege of the position of the other side, which greatly increases = cost. Best, Mike On Sep 2, 2023 at 18:03 -0700, David =46ern=C3=A1ndez via Starlink , wrote: > It seems that Starlink follows this norm, although it does not reflect > the entire Starlink system specification: > https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi=5Fen/303900=5F303999/303981/01.02.00=5F= 30/en=5F303981v010200v.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.pd= f > > > Date: =46ri, 1 Sep 2023 17:27:30 +0100 > > =46rom: Inemesit Affia > > To: David Lang > > Cc: Alexandre Petrescu , > > starlink=40lists.bufferbloat.net > > Subject: Re: =5BStarlink=5D Main hurdles against the Integration of > > Satellites and Terrestial Networks > > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D=22utf-8=22 > > > > =46or the US military, starlink has already allowed two antenna/termi= nal > > 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 wrote: > > > > > Exactly my thoughts (I haven't downloaded and read the full report = yet). > > > What > > > are they looking to do with this 'integration'=3F I can integrate m= y > > > starlink just > > > like any other ISP. > > > > > > or are they looking at the 'cell phones to orbit' functionality tha= ts due > > > to > > > roll out very suddently > > > > > > or are they looking for =22intergration=22 as another way to say =22= force SpaceX > > > to > > > open the specs for Starlink and allow other user terminals to inter= act > > > with the > > > Starlink satellites=3F > > > > > > The cynic in me says it's the latter. > > > > > > long term it may make sense to do this to some degree, but we are W= AY too > > > early > > > to define =22Interoperability Standards=22 and block people from co= ming up > > > with > > > better ways to do things. > > > > > > the Apple vs SpaceX cellphone-to-satellite have completely differen= t ways > > > of > > > operating, and who wants to tell all the Apple people that their wa= y isn't > > > going > > > to be the standard (or worse, that it is and they have to give ever= yone > > > 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, polic= y based > > > > routing or any solution in general that allows combination in a s= ense of > > > > any number of IP links, I really don't see a point for specific > > > solutions. > > > > Can anyone enlighten me=3F > > > > > > > > =46or home users an issue may be IP blocks for certain services l= ike > > > 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=40lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 30/08/2023 =C3=A0 14:10, Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink a =C3= =A9crit : > > > > > > Here is a report which summarizes the outcome of the last Sat= ellites > > > > > > conference > > > > > > =5B > > > > > > > > https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/39841-satellite-2023-summ= ary-linking-up > > > > > =5D > > > > > > > > > > > > The report highlights the two main hurdles against the integr= ation of > > > > > > satellites and terrestrial networks: standardization and busi= ness > > > model. > > > > > > > > > > > > =22/Most of the pushback against closer integration of terres= trial > > > > > > wireless and satellite networks revolved around standardizati= on. 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 bas= is of > > > > > > this argument was that the mobile industry only understands s= tandards, > > > > > > but the satellite industry is currently differentiating based= on > > > > > > custom systems and capabilities. The feeling was that the sat= ellite > > > > > > industry had focused on technology and not regulations or sta= ndards > > > > > > and changing that course would not be helpful to the industry= in the > > > > > > short term. Timing is important in this analysis because almo= st > > > > > > everyone agreed that at some point, standardization would be = a good > > > > > > thing, but the concern was the best way to get to the point i= n the > > > > > > future. The other interesting argument against closer integra= tion > > > > > > between wireless and satellite had to do with the business mo= del. > > > > > > Several speakers questioned where the customers would go as > > > > > > terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks become more integrat= ed. The > > > > > > underlying issues seemed to include who is responsible for so= lving > > > > > > network issues and perhaps more importantly, who recognizes t= he > > > > > > 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 wirel= ess and > > > > > > satellite operators.=22/ > > > > > > / > > > > > > / > > > > > > Comments=3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is an interesting report. > > > > > > > > > > =46or standardisation standpoint, it seems SDOs do push towards= > > > > > integration of 5G/6G and satcom; there are strong initiatives a= t least > > > > > at 3GPP (NTN WI proposals) and IET=46 (TVR WG) in that directio= n. But > > > > > these are SDOs traditionally oriented to land communications, r= ather > > > > > than space satcom. > > > > > > > > > > I wonder whether space satcom traditional SDOs (which ones=3F) = have > > > > > initiated work towards integration with 5G/6G and other land-ba= sed > > > > > Internet=3F > > > > > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hesham > =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 --64f4010b_7198bc87_2be Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
The ETSI standard you reference is a generic framew= ork for testing & measuring earth stations connecting to NGSO systems= , so they may be using it, but it=E2=80=99s not mandatory. In any case, t= he standard doesn=E2=80=99t have any effect on the R=46 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. Acq= uisition times are longer, and initial pointing requires extremely accura= te knowledege of the position of the other side, which greatly increases = cost.

Best,

Mike
On Sep 2, 2023 at 18:03 -0700, Davi= d =46ern=C3=A1ndez via Starlink <starlink=40lists.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=5Fen/303900=5F303999/303981/01.02.00=5F= 30/en=5F303981v010200v.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<= br />
Date: =46ri, 1 Sep 2023 17:27:30 +0100
=46rom: Inemesit Affia <inemesitaffia=40gmail.com>
To: David Lang <david=40lang.hm>
Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu=40gmail.com>,
starlink=40lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: =5BStarlink=5D Main hurdles against the Integration of
= Satellites and Terrestial Networks
Message-ID:
<CAJEhh70CMSk=5FWAmd9sgXfMDoWZhhz5uPAU=3Dd5UG3rW5X=46kw1KQ=40mail.gmai= l.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D=22utf-8=22

=46or the US military, starlink has already allowed two antenna/terminal<= br /> 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 fro= m
the DRM

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 8:36 PM David Lang <david=40lang.hm> wrote:
Exactly my thoughts (I haven't downloaded a= nd read the full report yet).
What
are they looking to do with this 'integration'=3F 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 =22intergration=22 as another way to say =22force= SpaceX
to
open the specs for Starlink and allow other user terminals to interact with the
Starlink satellites=3F

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 =22Interoperability Standards=22 and block people from coming u= p
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 OpenMT= CProuter, SDWAN, policy based
routing or any solution in general that allows combination in a sense of<= br /> any number of IP links, I really don't see a point for specific
solutions.
Can anyone enlighten me=3F

=46or home users an issue may be IP blocks for certain services like
Netflix
when the egress is out of a VPN or cloud pr= ovider richer than a
residential
provider

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 2:57 PM Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <
starlink=40lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:


Le 30/08/2023 =C3=A0 14:10, Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink a =C3=A9crit :<= br />
Here is a report which summarizes the outco= me of the last Satellites
conference
=5B

https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/39841-satellite-2023-summary-li= nking-up
=5D

The report highlights the two main hurdles against the integration of
satellites and terrestrial networks: standardization and business
model.

=22/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.=22/
/
/
Comments=3F


It is an interesting report.

=46or 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 IET=46 (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=3F) have
= initiated work towards integration with 5G/6G and other land-based
Internet=3F

Alex


Hesham
=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
--64f4010b_7198bc87_2be--