From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ot1-x330.google.com (mail-ot1-x330.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::330]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FF533B2A4 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 11:51:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ot1-x330.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-6bca5d6dcedso815076a34.1 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 08:51:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1693497091; x=1694101891; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=content-transfer-encoding:to:subject:message-id:date:from :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=2jGCDkxH142/wJkdigaCAR+feUt5URTaeOesVzz1EY0=; b=cjZ2qmS4ehnyLwnUyN27jXE1CAOaiMwUPItlNlLahmjtptQmaYQHwNHR8vRWESFS9p IR5yxgxEC5aO5QxAnE6boWSTXscpPZ0GGXUcm4cXrK46bOKP7iAxcMNAwCDfzHELsLnV NUQNKz7+ya2qZ8wRAtXivHYGUNZB1t2sqdMTnsqLABfjtNkDZQqTCX7pp9WZEzDpHD8B J+8pIcYJOJv/6+tW81xS1Uy4rgIKFgi/2CJE8ppRDVc/xSnUUAwfdNedlO6dfI+QGWvN epZHUd/NDzieGGeGnEJmwFmPBcG+VWzQEc8O71k1Qcd3/lr4ESGI+Fj870ip6wnw5WOA dB2g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1693497091; x=1694101891; h=content-transfer-encoding:to:subject:message-id:date:from :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=2jGCDkxH142/wJkdigaCAR+feUt5URTaeOesVzz1EY0=; b=PcKTN1FsNPC8pj93vYnMKeF6yf3tc5np20rp4VLwIHuAcPJG6wAA6QoJs8aFdEaOmZ YluLXUtbCbhZuXv9RWAnAfL4EkkAIy2QaHi6uDTgZBhd9+YRbm2D2eIcF6II0u3PxbhD za0ofayj4yfLNspuI66KERKdOyij3nZC4mdfH4xRdSYtteekGpdpdmcExkBG1zWQpyzM n96FWdhXZywcz0RuMJjoOBzSz3nprDZ3cY9f1y5/rWtcRreP36AMgvvEbQzCOvA41YtE sSlYEQlxNTtd5WDdGgM1DXEvwE163bFYdK4zAL7hECIJS/4L905jlnnfxbvlRJRBAJWd DJbQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxMy9zjfpPEF7urQ3Y9ZFyjdlUMoPdabkM9YfREfVizuGHjX+JC I8SyWkuz+GWguPN8qL8vUOzAGT9kkX4T/2JBn5cOswuHvEs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHqJi15rtpze29TxSUzJvNBj1VS6u3A/+Q7gghA1vATlY9BmfyfoGdDMtMrUXXnZl30LkXN9QxSV7Z1AVPGZeY= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:88:b0:1bb:867e:caeb with SMTP id u8-20020a056871008800b001bb867ecaebmr7370011oaa.51.1693497091076; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 08:51:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a05:6359:6399:b0:130:e6dd:711c with HTTP; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 08:51:30 -0700 (PDT) From: =?UTF-8?Q?David_Fern=C3=A1ndez?= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 17:51:30 +0200 Message-ID: To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 15:51:32 -0000 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-s= atellite-01#page=3D13&zoom=3Dauto,-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 > To: Alexandre Petrescu > Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > Subject: Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of > Satellites and Terrestial Networks > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"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 Netfli= x > when the egress is out of a VPN or cloud provider richer than a residenti= al > provider > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 2:57 PM Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink < > starlink@lists.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 Satellites >> > conference >> > [ >> https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/39841-satellite-2023-summary-l= inking-up >> ] >> > >> > The report highlights the two main hurdles against the integration of >> > satellites and terrestrial networks: standardization and business mode= l. >> > >> > "/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 >> >