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
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