From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oo1-xc33.google.com (mail-oo1-xc33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c33]) (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 4454E3B29E for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2023 21:03:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oo1-xc33.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-573675e6b43so243498eaf.0 for ; Sat, 02 Sep 2023 18:03:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1693703011; x=1694307811; 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=f1bttjvCpuaJSan2nHA6KJUcEnOcY1q8GIAL6mHpIBI=; b=nqQgyBhKlxqHaCo9x5n5XzcIjpfPY2BD3p5olrYittCmUcRc/8Bd+1HujPwY7fBxPw bg9CI+aoJ07MyLyJzZGk8imrjGuFLRlN0cC6FMRwr5tBlvGpU4aalDKsmNsYT4wCxgl+ WgyjtYuNhsgTytd7zxWXv39xGApjttv+V8bVNMCusmTEnU/g7y4nZtySXYeXV0xEibAt i0QiMR395HjS++/xrt/j9Ej3TVk6IdwZ41zjscxjUzfvTih9zwXXGxeloYUb2aVtKGvh wyfPv+wPntmnCY9hThBn4T/9sqr3suBc/qeCUdCP76XECciUt6INLRWUNJniMd3u053g raZA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1693703011; x=1694307811; 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=f1bttjvCpuaJSan2nHA6KJUcEnOcY1q8GIAL6mHpIBI=; b=NkVFKI79kTXlnRPeJpAKgDMm9/6v+hlxPUgSiusQYdoOC+sk+XKBqrWYUcgc18HgjU PLQcK4qolrKZrS0Mv7qZA4WlvYvNkcmsrWCwYXg/+A1BCvLlpR+SbXDmFYVd2/8zrD7h ebXDBmnOdgzq9Toa9FpwR9uXkeXPkPWANkpB5Nxu9b1HyZlsScpR1x+WpmpDyTCvy6wz SQ45Q+I/d55266dMGNBtacDIrW9psx7L7yI8/c3l/6tRP5QhpE5bJq5MqlzKtxSa7Jm1 Ev7IDHmaZmBinuOX8i7Ba3AuTNCxigSScczGOCGUZyUjeyC02aRtVsLO0Lxwz1nZKu+R GNLw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwMaTk+z0Y7SLnFZaSq58Y2KpnK1IXulu87A6+70o8CDINjB0G4 zjqUdcSHVFUOFPWLWdAfFArgKtEFMBUfLB1jk1//TZn/ X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHhnFRBNsj2eYEURny+YCm0WkU1DiIc4iTcpo9IH4cEqIibqOjPymvtAo7V6A7cU/o2roXw8l4ZANOq6CV3loQ= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:d1cc:0:b0:571:2b59:d697 with SMTP id a12-20020a4ad1cc000000b005712b59d697mr5326974oos.0.1693703011150; Sat, 02 Sep 2023 18:03:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a05:6358:e484:b0:130:e6dd:711c with HTTP; Sat, 2 Sep 2023 18:03:30 -0700 (PDT) From: =?UTF-8?Q?David_Fern=C3=A1ndez?= Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 03:03:30 +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: Sun, 03 Sep 2023 01:03:32 -0000 It seems that Starlink follows this norm, although it does not reflect the entire Starlink system specification: https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/303900_303999/303981/01.02.00_30/en_30= 3981v010200v.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 > Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 17:27:30 +0100 > From: Inemesit Affia > To: David Lang > Cc: Alexandre Petrescu , > 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" > > For the US military, starlink has already allowed two antenna/terminal > 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 wrote: > >> 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 >> starlink just >> like any other ISP. >> >> or are they looking at the 'cell phones to orbit' functionality thats du= e >> to >> roll out very suddently >> >> or are they looking for "intergration" as another way to say "force Spac= eX >> to >> open the specs for Starlink and allow other user terminals to interact >> with 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 to= o >> early >> to define "Interoperability Standards" and block people from coming up >> with >> better ways to do things. >> >> the Apple vs SpaceX cellphone-to-satellite have completely different way= s >> 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 OpenMTCProuter, SDWAN, policy bas= ed >> > 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 =C3=A0 14:10, Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink a =C3=A9cri= t : >> >>> 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 o= f >> >>> satellites and terrestrial networks: standardization and business >> model. >> >>> >> >>> "/Most of the pushback against closer integration of terrestrial >> >>> wireless and satellite networks revolved around standardization. Thi= s >> >>> may just be growing pains and it likely reflects the relative >> >>> positions of wireless and satellite along the maturity curve, but so= me >> >>> of the speakers were arguing against standardization. The basis of >> >>> this argument was that the mobile industry only understands standard= s, >> >>> 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 leas= t >> >> 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