From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oo1-xc2a.google.com (mail-oo1-xc2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2a]) (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 313DD3B2A4 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 12:12:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oo1-xc2a.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-5738cb00eebso608548eaf.2 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 09:12:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1693498340; x=1694103140; 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=Kn7DDjXWY0UJeatGV+9knLB0tXsMmu2D38mUw5L0NC8=; b=nU18rpXF2JSEKfbZ7aR/8p9kTpgf044nrNSMMOj2HQQTwcaOtbp1aOYPYIPV7ITlMm y8+P2YRLS7k1xYqkfD7bECwkgA7u5yUeQ8Qk9nQE1ChklwiY20AZwgiO19mXI60IiTrW 8qFwINkeEDFoy3Xoypr/oQ35qpCwbOyPYOyRaGsmqoAAY7w+ywibxyVZ9rHIcHCjs8VY M9Ko3/heX6yIUt3faOU1oUWh7qSz7JwJDgrUSaBo2Q+wJlnIkPSjD6FCE9qDerNqqJ4d Ou5Ep5kGRuE140dWqjRTlilZTRVL433nGXqn0R3NDKHrhig/u9NwbENcs5IdAL2+iYhA Flqg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1693498340; x=1694103140; 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=Kn7DDjXWY0UJeatGV+9knLB0tXsMmu2D38mUw5L0NC8=; b=LgZDxLii13EAAYhAYsODA9i0sG1R/4qaMmmS6qvcXi+0t3mKhJ/r+6+ldXfb74B+L1 AFp/FYtIgIIO86JzUcy1n5hAuwzhf/O62KWhPmP09cvd8WWbjW3PiVVnA9cvMYePB2W4 E54/sGUeJaMcNBWULK3hhuHIHJSLI/30as8F9OE+22c2hUdgDOQzvePuKwx8Zg+rDXpo 58Iy41cnnrJAl2bnNaXkoA/6UmYW9MrHkAiiMayHgP4dQOPwcPOwzQfhmltemIqlY27w sc9oRGOqPRwpcL2HwtaN0AxLADXnu0+4AmIISRvZBxNuxR+ndVo6Jpf4UwHlesTBnEJ4 mL8w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwXzuICHeJglxJbuTmPxwaLxLgQenYAetjBDnBORW+XtBKXvql0 lL0/CjNS5h5vv4VSqamO+YOfh8pKGGMvFsKWz8krqoQuL58= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH85eEPYZUUjpshZt3Ls+v6wxPELcCm1pifAZ0herp1GULRodn868gHBJBZvAKi2M4uZTCHC7Nq/BOSU6kqtYA= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:2a52:0:b0:573:3711:51c4 with SMTP id x18-20020a4a2a52000000b00573371151c4mr5457191oox.8.1693498340174; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 09:12:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a05:6359:6399:b0:130:e6dd:711c with HTTP; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 09:12:19 -0700 (PDT) From: =?UTF-8?Q?David_Fern=C3=A1ndez?= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 18:12:19 +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 16:12:21 -0000 I have not seen a report, it is a couple of web pages to read, isn't it? Just my two cents: "Standards are the distilled wisdom of people with expertise in their subject matter and who know the needs of the organizations they represent =E2=80=93 people such as manufacturers, sellers, buyers, customer= s, trade associations, users or regulators. Standards are knowledge. They are powerful tools that can help drive innovation and increase productivity. They can make organizations more successful and people=E2=80=99s everyday lives easier, safer and healthier.= " https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/standards/Information-about-standards/what-i= s-a-standard Look to what is reported about Rohde & Schwarz and Satixfy in the Satellite 2023 about the DVB-S2X and DVB-RCS2 standards. I think that the satellite industry has standards (DVB-S2X being the most notable example), and these standards are not going to be replaced by 5G NTN, 3GPP ones, so easily. In any case, the 3GPP has defined since release 16 the N3IWF and the ATSSS with MPTCP, which is kind of standardized way of doing the same that can be done with SDWAN (propietary technologies): https://romars.tech/en/pubblications/n3iwf/ https://romars.tech/en/pubblications/atsss/ In the case of 5G NTN, if I think that the idea is that the terminal is doing roaming between the terrestrial and the satellite network, managing the links as when you have multiple SIM cards in the mobile. Finally, related to the use of standards, I have been recently very disappointed to see that this service is using a non-standard return link, preventing Router Freedom for SATCOM users: https://fsfe.org/activities/routers/routers.en.html New GEO based Internet access for rural areas in Spain (Hispasat) sponsored by Government Up to 4 million subscribers are entitled all around the country, in areas where there is not any terrestrial network providing Internet access at least at 50 Mbit/s, and there are quite a few spots: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/a1efc4ec0e4b42ad90274ad6febb1608/ 100 Mbit/s downlink DVB-S2X, non-standard? MF-TDMA uplink at 5 Mbit/s / 10 Mbit/s Hughes modems: https://conectate35.es/#equipamiento 35 euros/month, 150 GB. Average total (monthly?) maximum latency: 690 ms (two way?) (VoIP compatibl= e) 99.5% availability https://conectate35.es/#servicio Regards, David > Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 12:35:59 -0700 (PDT) > From: David Lang > To: Inemesit Affia > Cc: Alexandre Petrescu , > starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > Subject: Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of > Satellites and Terrestial Networks > Message-ID: <4o116qp9-6108-91r8-pn91-o37o6629npqo@ynat.uz> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-15"; Format=3D"flowed" > > Exactly my thoughts (I haven't downloaded and read the full report yet). > What > are they looking to do with this 'integration'? I can integrate my starli= nk > 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 "intergration" as another way to say "force Space= X > to > open the specs for Starlink and allow other user terminals to interact wi= th > the > Starlink satellites? > > 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 "Interoperability Standards" and block people from coming up wi= th > 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 e= lse > 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, 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 solution= s. >> Can anyone enlighten me? >> >> For home users an issue may be IP blocks for certain services like Netfl= ix >> 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 =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-= linking-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