Re: [Starlink] routing capability in starlinks

[Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1858 bytes --]

It’s reasonable to think that it’s segment routed in some way, the
advantages there are numerous and pretty clear. It would give them the
significant advantage of being able to leverage a PCE controller
architecture and provide a lot of LFA options for resiliency. My money
would be there, either SR-MPLS or SRv6.
Not a lot of options for SRv6 at this time (some ur not many). It’s not
outside the realm of possibilities by any stretch of the imagination.

nb

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 6:35 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> Dave Taht <davet@teklibre.net> wrote:
>     > going village to village on the same sat would save a ton of backhaul
>     > bandwidth and offer less latency for things like phone calls. The CGN
>     > (dang it) looks doomed to backhaul somewhere, but perhaps the ipv6
>     > stuff?
>
> As well as resiliency, and perhaps legal protection against NSL.
>
>     > I imagine they do it at the l2 protocol and program the next hop(s)
> on
>     > the ground, but we do live in an age where everything is centralized
>
> "Simpler than IPv6" is all we ever got.
> I think that it's MPLS or SR6 based upon some commodity fabric, with SDN to
> create the paths.
>
>     > (for those that don’t know, I’ve been working on distance-vector
>     > routing protocols for decades, most of my work on that front for the
>     > last decade has been focused on making the babel routing protocol
> scale
>     > better than bgp does for meshy links )
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2682 bytes --]