From: "David Fernández" <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of Satellites and Terrestial Networks
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 17:51:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAC=tZ0q2san9uUcSg06KX-WdLTPOrvg-q=T-3c_5zr0o5MLyUQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
The use of MPTCP on satellite links has been analyzed here (for
example) and the use of PEPs in GEO satellite links prevent the use of
MPTCP:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-mptcp-mptcp-satellite-01#page=13&zoom=auto,-91,32
Another option could be MPQUIC (still in development AFAIK),
I have been told in the past that a tighter integration of satellite
and terrestrial networks is required mainly for business purposes
(billing).
Regards,
David
> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 17:51:37 +0100
> From: Inemesit Affia <inemesitaffia@gmail.com>
> To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of
> Satellites and Terrestial Networks
> Message-ID:
> <CAJEhh73R-9hZ3_C6ause9GezdHKPMrvtmHeodoykN6fMZgqP6Q@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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
>> >
next reply other threads:[~2023-08-31 15:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-31 15:51 David Fernández [this message]
-- 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
2023-08-30 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
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 13:44 ` 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
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='CAC=tZ0q2san9uUcSg06KX-WdLTPOrvg-q=T-3c_5zr0o5MLyUQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=davidfdzp@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