From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oo1-xc2b.google.com (mail-oo1-xc2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2b]) (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 8B4A93B29D for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 10:55:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oo1-xc2b.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-57361de8878so3323478eaf.0 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:55:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1695135310; x=1695740110; 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=jgEMFNxOQyNCAPQn8plJH8D63LQJk6qAiudFbAtoilU=; b=aXv2FmiZuGT+Db1FFP+0fIBhI4yS0ebqjMEDkGdr1BZhHQeRk1CMshCbbPzDLrMSZb vFXZ4AQshMRkaJuAu/h1/qMnS85dYAkH1Po6QL3CbVS7IGYJ7iIJvFWObY7it9qT31AP Y08OlX/sfUqUK4rOeS3t1/3pvc8H0gAq1/U6hGNUsBVp3zTrsgWNuXHHepPJCSeQ5Qqj 0LaRL2wmycn1rTeotls2bOl229JY3pwOPWmZGxN4i3hvuaJkVqEQce+PD7mts4nPuHTr R3bRXqQdE8xY79zWW2P4p1ESKDRNzNXxqnZ44TvT5JxuYq0eR8eBSaiPaiDAJn3h7X9L x+1w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1695135310; x=1695740110; 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=jgEMFNxOQyNCAPQn8plJH8D63LQJk6qAiudFbAtoilU=; b=GO/dcOEYzNnr7hjJfEBw3mpyiNBHihvcVzuOBm88p/CLycNX9wTJ7Kh2JJu4jaWpLf b9oLchrPIlemijzKIpH8dF1kOHTcbZDzj2J/gguEC5rP1299RNwr0y50Eb9wc1Wn5CA8 6oT9HxmIH7A1B5AvlaOwnWDNECJOu3iPMurn7p7rHnh66V9uv9Ke/hHgWW6ZEh34AeHF LCezM6aXp/aCqUg47SGnV8x3tAExfTW0GaT8dY8lFSa5xzJ7O/apgpcmpV9MO5eJbM0w 48v2OkyrYhj1nNPnGFBhXxQLGsCqYgyzzATW282nv6LXwqAZvPnoELxG/hbeE6cU9QDQ y5pA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyQE/KWAsRJ5vpSW8jC3+nYNJWHjBZceW9ucnJ3Meh3vc8vJy6I MQOc6AQKm3AAE/pVYfyOKclhcGgh9dIeEXgHzA7pCT2msRQo6A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFD2U/DCJX0qPpzcvUZnqoY+Z9MROkPFZKZxl8PaE++l8D2mJRV+E3DRKKRL7Oc2hWfgcBUYANV2D8CVF/Qk1g= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:611:b0:1c8:d72a:d6ba with SMTP id w17-20020a056871061100b001c8d72ad6bamr14003446oan.45.1695135310484; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:55:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a05:6358:382a:b0:143:54ad:58e5 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:55:10 -0700 (PDT) From: =?UTF-8?Q?David_Fern=C3=A1ndez?= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 16:55:10 +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: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:55:11 -0000 "I don't see everything, but the news I've heard has been primarily other companies trying to use regulations to block Starlink, not a basis for cooperation" You may have missed this: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/13/spacex-starlink-partners-with-ses-for-combi= ned-cruise-market-service.html I understand that Starlink is combined as another link, using SD-WAN, as explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DDDM-_MTnRTg I would expect only latency critical traffic, such as voice and video calls, to be sent via Starlink, while emails or text messages go via GEO satellite links. Regards, David > Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:36:39 -0700 (PDT) > From: David Lang > To: Alexandre Petrescu > Cc: Hesham ElBakoury , David Lang > , Dave Taht via Starlink > , sat-int@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of > Satellites and Terrestial Networks > Message-ID: <35r3366r-5pr2-83no-716o-7o4r2820n9pn@ynat.uz> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"; Format=3D"flowed" > > On Tue, 19 Sep 2023, Alexandre Petrescu wrote: > >> Le 19/09/2023 =C3=A0 02:36, Hesham ElBakoury a =C3=A9crit : >> [...] >> >>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023, 5:31 PM David Lang > [...] >> >>> Starlink is just another IP path, >> >> Yes. >> >> For IPv6 it might not be that simple. There can be things suggested to >> starlink to implement, such as to make it better from an IPv6 >> standpoint. That includes, and is not limited to, this /64 aspect. >> >> For IP in general (be it IPv4 or IPv6), as long as starlink stays >> closed, there might be no interest to suggest anything about IP that >> they have not already thought of. > > Personally, I think that it's more a situation that they are doing someth= ing > that nobody else has done (at least on anything close to this scale) so t= hey > are > scrambling to make it work and finding things that the rest of us are jus= t > speculating about. > >> IF on the other hand, starlink feels a need to interoperate, then we can >> discuss. > > interoperate with what is the question. > > Interoperate with other ground stations? > > include other companies satellites in their space based routing? > > Right now there isn't a lot in the way of other space based routing for t= hem > to > possibly be interoperable with, and other systems have been actively host= ile > to > Starlink (I don't know if it's mutual or not, I don't see everything, but > the > news I've heard has been primarily other companies trying to use regulati= ons > to > block Starlink, not a basis for cooperation) > > I also think that it's a bit early to push for standardization of the lin= ks. > We > don't have enough experience to know what really works on this sort of sc= ale > and > dynamic connection environment. > >> It is possible that starlink does not feel any need to interoperate now. >> At that point, the need to interoperate might come as a mandate from >> some outside factors. Such factors could be the public-private >> cooperations. Other factors could be partnerships that appear when some >> organisations feel the need to cooperate. I will not speculate when, >> but it happens. >> >> Assuming that such openness appears, with a need to interoperate, then >> there certainly will be perspective developped where Starlink is not >> just another IP path. >> >>> all the tools that you use with any other ISP work on that path (or >>> are restricted like many other consumer ISPs with dynamic addressing, >>> no inbound connections, no BGP peering, etc. No reason that the those >>> couldn't work, SpaceX just opts not to support them on consumer >>> dishes) >> >> But, these other ISPs (not Starlink) are all standardized. > > they are now, but they have not been in the past, and nothing prevents a > networking vendor from introducing new proprietary things that only work = on > their equipment and are (hopefully) transparent to users. We actually see > this > with caching, 'wan accelerators', captive portals, etc > >>> I'll turn the question back to you, what is the problem that you think = is >>> >>> there that needs to be solved? >> >> Here is one, but there are potentially more. I would not close the door >> to >> searching them. >> >> I dont have DISHY, so no first hand experience. >> >> But I suspect the IPv6 it supports it is an IPv6 encapsulated in IPv4. >> That >> adds to latency, not to say bufferbloat. It brings in a single point of >> failure too (if it fails, then all fails). > > is there some testing that I can do to help you with this? > > personally, I suspect that even IPv4 is encapsulated in some way. > >> Then, when they'll want to remove that they'd hit into the /64 issue. > > I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to here, sorry. > > David Lang > >> Alex >>> >>> David Lang >>> >>>> Thanks, Hesham >>>> >>>> On Sun, Sep 17, 2023, 12:59 PM David Lang via Starlink < >>>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> it's very clear that there is a computer in the dishy that you >>> are talking >>>>> to. You get the network connection while the dishy is not connected >>> to the >>>>> satellites (there's even a status page and controls, stowing and >>> unstowing >>>>> for example) >>>>> >>>>> I think we've seen that the dishy is running linux (I know the >>> routers run >>>>> an old openwrt), but I don't remember the details of the dishy >>> software. >>>>> >>>>> David Lang >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2023 19:21:50 +0200 From: Alexandre Petrescu via >>>>>> Starlink >>> = > >>>>>> Reply-To: Alexandre Petrescu >> > >>>>>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of >>>>> Satellites and >>>>>> Terrestial Networks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 16/09/2023 =C3=A0 01:32, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink a =C3=A9crit= : >>>>>>> On 16/09/2023 5:52 am, David Lang wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In addition to that Ulrich says, the dishy is a full >>> computer, it's >>>>>>>> output is ethernet/IP and with some adapters or cable >>> changes, you >>>>>>>> can plug it directly into a router. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We've done that with the Yaosheng PoE Dishy adapter - actually >>> plugged >>>>>>> a DHCP client straight in - and it "works" but with a noticeably >>>>>>> higher >>>>>>> rate of disconnects. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is good to know one can plug a DHCP client into the Ethernet >>> of the >>>>>> DISHY and receive DHCP replies. >>>>>> >>>>>> But that would be only a lead into what kind of DHCPv4 is >>> supported, or >>>>> not. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would ask to know whether the DHCP server runs on the DISHY, or >>>>>> whether it is on the ground network of starlink, i.e. the reply >>> to DHCP >>>>>> request comes after 50ms, or after 500microseconds (timestamp >>> difference >>>>>> can be seen in the wireshark run on that Ethernet). >>>>>> >>>>>> This (DHCP server daemon on dishy or on ground segment) has an >>> impact of >>>>>> how IPv6 can be, or is, made to work. >>>>>> >>>>>> This kind of behaviour of DHCP - basically asking who >>>>>> allocates an address - has seen a continous evolution in 3GPP >>>>>> cellular >>> networks since >>>>>> they appeared. Nowadays the DHCP behaviour is very complex in >>> a 3GPP >>>>>> network; even in a typical smartphone there are intricacies >>> about where >>>>>> and how the DHCP client and server works. With it comes the >>> problem of >>>>>> /64 in cellular networks (which some dont call a problem, but I >>> do). >>>>>> >>>>>> So, it would be interesting to see whether starlink has the >>> same /64 >>>>>> problem as 3GPP has, or is free of it (simply put: can I >>> connect several >>>>>> Ethernet subnets in my home to starlink, in native IPv6 that is, or >>>>> not?). >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ Starlink mailing lis= t >>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> >>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >>> >