From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-x52e.google.com (mail-ed1-x52e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52e]) (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 EB9A33CB63 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 13:39:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id t3so13955327edc.7 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 10:39:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hackaday-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vUmMLDW8YhiI7gZgxNelHo8bAtA03ELC18Fe3YtHcZw=; b=ZM8oOGy49X24jv5mi1PhiS6lnO73AHunrfr6cEyZ4R0OHkpmmONC0C/nOViiOKA4C9 iQQmwQGiWtfgk/ras3XQ+CQ7m81aO/jnr2r4hGzD0s8Kpgf3P2Gr7v+OFMRrRZdIBjuF CLw6RZblKFZzIRpVCz0sSnkcpkLXm5qDEjebSzMa3jbpDNjZCNKe07zrGoqPBNBkoMk3 m+acgSceTACD6siezt+emY4RxgjERJQ4nluOzFxR06lbeEAz354yRQanIx1MEW6vnbP+ 6ZuR29cy9Zrbs9BmPFriGra+/RU0A+KOAPjAPw2NCqw7w7C+2RA/IhuK2StPmYBCQi8M DVMA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vUmMLDW8YhiI7gZgxNelHo8bAtA03ELC18Fe3YtHcZw=; b=jE8TuADX/V3rUCDNeeOmO+cq0q9oFwhEU0PyNSkr0WPqarUOgkkq3vIpEytCS++0QT wXiTcWhYAx8T7E9TO6pLCGerBJLH8BZZctrW4ukPGOWTc/Vyw5JaR7K1yFA5et5fX8+u XIarChmpTRtpRW47MLx9Bh47AF4Hb086US1v//Vn/QtR66xFuPGdhL+NRr2JiqEbI6hW ZWv1BmvAl2810rQJHpxUVqQQkuu2I1BxvePzkmelVFGbsxZE/gD+T5q/cJDIhTbwWUHr /JIFERao7n8VvhHa0Qe8kGGnOdIJPQPhV1Wj5K+fyAwEsS/VaL16NnX/JjyFW3vSiLvf 3Ofw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531f4NPbfhal7rZ63NKLJVP7Jh3ufOZKXMk87DehfAgHBWWjw/iI dGJgyMuMp0A9rrgXkvUvH2VLf2120p2MEIlbbbB0Fg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzehZUdDiZ+GMyH92VNmmmNW3EHM3PAXxTbfXCRV9fycpxi3+fYMKj7RSet09aiOYBCuBXcdtjMsLIhleH1tms= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:503:: with SMTP id m3mr16307456edv.183.1626457181858; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 10:39:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1625856001.74681750@apps.rackspace.com> In-Reply-To: From: Jonathan Bennett Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 12:39:30 -0500 Message-ID: To: Nathan Owens Cc: Mike Puchol , starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net, "David P. Reed" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009143fa05c74112df" Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink and bufferbloat status? 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: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 17:39:43 -0000 --0000000000009143fa05c74112df Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 12:35 PM Nathan Owens wrote: > The other case where they could provide benefit is very long distance > paths --- NY to Tokyo, Johannesburg to London, etc... but presumably at > high cost, as the capacity will likely be much lower than submarine cable= s. > >> Or traffic between Starlink customers. A video call between me and someone else on the Starlink network is going to be drastically better if it can route over the sats. > >> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:31 AM Mike Puchol wrote: > >> Satellite optical links are useful to extend coverage to areas where you >> don=E2=80=99t have gateways - thus, they will introduce additional laten= cy compared >> to two space segment hops (terminal to satellite -> satellite to gateway= ). >> If you have terminal to satellite, two optical hops, then final satellit= e >> to gateway, you will have more latency, not less. >> >> We are being =E2=80=9Csold=E2=80=9D optical links for what they are not = IMHO. >> >> Best, >> >> Mike >> On Jul 16, 2021, 19:29 +0200, Nathan Owens , wrote: >> >> > As there are more satellites, the up down time will get closer to 4-5m= s >> rather then the ~7ms you list >> >> Possibly, if you do steering to always jump to the lowest latency >> satellite. >> >> > with laser relays in orbit, and terminal to terminal routing in orbit, >> there is the potential for the theoretical minimum to tend lower >> Maybe for certain users really in the middle of nowhere, but I did the >> best-case math for "bent pipe" in Seattle area, which is as good as it g= ets. >> >> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:24 AM David Lang wrote: >> >>> hey, it's a good attitude to have :-) >>> >>> Elon tends to set 'impossible' goals, miss the timeline a bit, and come >>> very >>> close to the goal, if not exceed it. >>> >>> As there are more staellites, the up down time will get closer to 4-5ms >>> rather >>> then the ~7ms you list, and with laser relays in orbit, and terminal to >>> terminal >>> routing in orbit, there is the potential for the theoretical minimum to >>> tend >>> lower, giving some headroom for other overhead but still being in the >>> 20ms >>> range. >>> >>> David Lang >>> >>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021, Nathan Owens wrote: >>> >>> > Elon said "foolish packet routing" for things over 20ms! Which seems >>> crazy >>> > if you do some basic math: >>> > >>> > - Sat to User Terminal distance: 550-950km air/vacuum: 1.9 - 3.3ms >>> > - Sat to GW distance: 550-950km air/vacuum: 1.9 - 3.3ms >>> > - GW to PoP Distance: 50-800km fiber: 0.25 - 4ms >>> > - PoP to Internet Distance: 50km fiber: 0.25 - 0.5ms >>> > - Total one-way delay: 4.3 - 11.1ms >>> > - Theoretical minimum RTT: 8.6ms - 22.2ms, call it 15.4ms >>> > >>> > This includes no transmission delay, queuing delay, >>> > processing/fragmentation/reassembly/etc, and no time-division >>> multiplexing. >>> > >>> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:09 AM David Lang wrote: >>> > >>> >> I think it depends on if you are looking at datacenter-to-datacenter >>> >> latency of >>> >> home to remote datacenter latency :-) >>> >> >>> >> my rule of thumb for cross US ping time has been 80-100ms latency (b= ut >>> >> it's been >>> >> a few years since I tested it). >>> >> >>> >> I note that an article I saw today said that Elon is saying that >>> latency >>> >> will >>> >> improve significantly in the near future, that up/down latency is >>> ~20ms >>> >> and the >>> >> additional delays pushing it to the 80ms range are 'stupid packet >>> routing' >>> >> problems that they are working on. >>> >> >>> >> If they are still in that level of optimization, it doesn't surprise >>> me >>> >> that >>> >> they haven't really focused on the bufferbloat issue, they have more >>> >> obvious >>> >> stuff to fix first. >>> >> >>> >> David Lang >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021, Wheelock, Ian wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 10:21:52 +0000 >>> >>> From: "Wheelock, Ian" >>> >>> To: David Lang , David P. Reed >>> >>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" >> > >>> >>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink and bufferbloat status? >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi David >>> >>> In terms of the Latency that David (Reed) mentioned for California = to >>> >> Massachusetts of about 17ms over the public internet, it seems a bit >>> faster >>> >> than what I would expect. My own traceroute via my VDSL link shows >>> 14ms >>> >> just to get out of the operator network. >>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.wondernetwork.com is a handy tool for checking >>> geographic >>> >> ping perf between cities, and it shows a min of about 66ms for pings >>> >> between Boston and San Diego >>> >> https://wondernetwork.com/pings/boston/San%20Diego (so about 33ms fo= r >>> >> 1-way transfer). >>> >>> >>> >>> Distance wise this is about 4,100 KM (2,500 M), and @2/3 speed of >>> light >>> >> (through a pure fibre link of that distance) the propagation time is >>> just >>> >> over 20ms. If the network equipment between the Boston and San Diego >>> is >>> >> factored in, with some buffering along the way, 33ms does seem quite >>> >> reasonable over the 20ms for speed of light in fibre for that 1-way >>> transfer >>> >>> >>> >>> -Ian Wheelock >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Starlink on behalf o= f >>> >> David Lang >>> >>> Date: Friday 9 July 2021 at 23:59 >>> >>> To: "David P. Reed" >>> >>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" >> > >>> >>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink and bufferbloat status? >>> >>> >>> >>> IIRC, the definition of 'low latency' for the FCC was something lik= e >>> >> 100ms, and Musk was predicting <40ms. roughly competitive with >>> landlines, >>> >> and worlds better than geostationary satellite (and many >>> >>> External (mailto:david@lang.hm) >>> >>> >>> >> >>> https://shared.outlook.inky.com/report?id=3DY29tbXNjb3BlL2lhbi53aGVlbG9= ja0Bjb21tc2NvcGUuY29tL2I1MzFjZDA4OTZmMWI0Yzc5NzdiOTIzNmY3MTAzM2MxLzE2MjU4Nz= E1NDkuNjU=3D#key=3D19e8545676e28e577c813de83a4cf1dc >>> >> https://www.inky.com/banner-faq/ https://www.inky.com >>> >>> >>> >>> IIRC, the definition of 'low latency' for the FCC was something lik= e >>> >> 100ms, and >>> >>> Musk was predicting <40ms. >>> >>> >>> >>> roughly competitive with landlines, and worlds better than >>> geostationary >>> >>> satellite (and many wireless ISPs) >>> >>> >>> >>> but when doing any serious testing of latency, you need to be wired >>> to >>> >> the >>> >>> router, wifi introduces so much variability that it swamps the >>> signal. >>> >>> >>> >>> David Lang >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 9 Jul 2021, David P. Reed wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2021 14:40:01 -0400 (EDT) >>> >>>> From: David P. Reed >>> >>>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> >>>> Subject: [Starlink] Starlink and bufferbloat status? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Early measurements of performance of Starlink have shown significa= nt >>> >> bufferbloat, as Dave Taht has shown. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> But... Starlink is a moving target. The bufferbloat isn't a >>> hardware >>> >> issue, it should be completely manageable, starting by simple firmwa= re >>> >> changes inside the Starlink system itself. For example, implementing >>> >> fq_codel so that bottleneck links just drop packets according to the >>> Best >>> >> Practices RFC, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> So I'm hoping this has improved since Dave's measurements. How muc= h >>> has >>> >> it improved? What's the current maximum packet latency under full >>> >> load, Ive heard anecdotally that a friend of a friend gets 84 msec. >>> *ping >>> >> times under full load*, but he wasn't using flent or some other >>> measurement >>> >> tool of good quality that gives a true number. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> 84 msec is not great - it's marginal for Zoom quality experience >>> (you >>> >> want latencies significantly less than 100 msec. as a rule of thumb >>> for >>> >> teleconferencing quality). But it is better than Dave's measurements >>> showed. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Now Musk bragged that his network was "low latency" unlike other >>> high >>> >> speed services, which means low end-to-end latency. That got him >>> >> permission from the FCC to operate Starlink at all. His number was, = I >>> >> think, < 5 msec. 84 is a lot more than 5. (I didn't believe 5, >>> because he >>> >> probably meant just the time from the ground station to the terminal >>> >> through the satellite. But I regularly get 17 msec. between >>> California and >>> >> Massachusetts over the public Internet) >>> >>>> >>> >>>> So 84 might be the current status. That would mean that someone at >>> >> Srarlink might be paying some attention, but it is a long way from >>> what >>> >> Musk implied. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> PS: I forget the number of the RFC, but the number of packets >>> queued on >>> >> an egress link should be chosen by taking the hardware bottleneck >>> >> throughput of any path, combined with an end-to-end Internet >>> underlying >>> >> delay of about 10 msec. to account for hops between source and >>> destination. >>> >> Lets say Starlink allocates 50 Mb/sec to each customer, packets are >>> limited >>> >> to 10,000 bits (1500 * 8), so the outbound queues should be limited = to >>> >> about 0.01 * 50,000,000 / 10,000, which comes out to about 250 >>> packets from >>> >> each terminal of buffering, total, in the path from terminal to publ= ic >>> >> Internet, assuming the connection to the public Internet is not a >>> problem. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> Starlink mailing list >>> >>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> >>> >>> >> >>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1sNc_-1HhGCW7xdirt_lAoAy5Nn5T6UA85Scjn5BR7= QHXtumhrf6RKn78SuRJG7DUKI3duggU9g6hJKW-Ze07HTczYqB9mBpIeALqk5drQ7nMvM8K7JbW= fUbPR7JSNrI75UjiNXQk0wslBfoOTvkMlRj5eMOZhps7DMGBRQTVAeTd5vwXoQtDgS6zLCcJkrc= O2S9MRSCC4f1I17SzgQJIwqo3LEwuN6lD-pkX0MFLqGr2zzsHw5eapd-VBlHu5reC4-OEn2zHkb= 7HNzS1pcueF6tsUE1vFRsWs2SIOwU5MvbKe3J3Q6NRQ40cHI1AGd-i/https://lists.buffer= bloat.net/listinfo/starlink >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Starlink mailing list >>> >> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >>> >> >>> > >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Starlink mailing list >> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >> >> _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > --0000000000009143fa05c74112df Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 12:35 PM Nathan Owens <nathan@nathan.io> wrote:
The other case where they could= provide benefit is very long distance paths --- NY to Tokyo, Johannesburg = to London, etc... but presumably at high cost, as the capacity will likely = be much lower than submarine cables.

Or traffic between Starlink customers. A video call between me a= nd someone else on the Starlink network is going to be drastically better i= f it can route over the sats.

O= n Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:31 AM Mike Puchol <mike@starlink.sx> wrot= e:
Satellite optical links are useful to extend coverage to = areas where you don=E2=80=99t have gateways - thus, they will introduce add= itional latency compared to two space segment hops (terminal to satellite -= > satellite to gateway). If you have terminal to satellite, two optical = hops, then final satellite to gateway, you will have more latency, not less= .

We are being =E2=80=9Csold=E2=80=9D optical links for what they are not IMH= O.

Best,

Mike
On Jul 16, 2021, 19:29 +0200, Nathan Owen= s <nathan@nathan.io>, wrote:
> As there are more satellites, the up down time will g= et closer to 4-5ms rather then the ~7ms you list

Possibly, if you do steering to always jump to the lowest latency sate= llite.=C2=A0

> with laser relays in orbit, and terminal to terminal routing in o= rbit, there is the potential for the theoretical minimum to tend lower
<= /div>
Maybe for certain users really in the middle of nowhere, but I did the= best-case math for "bent pipe" in Seattle area, which is as good= as it gets.

On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:24 AM Davi= d Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
hey, it's a good atti= tude to have :-)

Elon tends to set 'impossible' goals, miss the timeline a bit, and = come very
close to the goal, if not exceed it.

As there are more staellites, the up down time will get closer to 4-5ms rat= her
then the ~7ms you list, and with laser relays in orbit, and terminal to ter= minal
routing in orbit, there is the potential for the theoretical minimum to ten= d
lower, giving some headroom for other overhead but still being in the 20ms<= br> range.

David Lang

=C2=A0 On Fri, 16 Jul 2021, Nathan Owens wrote:

> Elon said "foolish packet routing" for things over 20ms! Whi= ch seems crazy
> if you do some basic math:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0- Sat to User Terminal distance: 550-950km air/vacuum: 1.9= - 3.3ms
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0- Sat to GW distance: 550-950km air/vacuum: 1.9 - 3.3ms >=C2=A0 =C2=A0- GW to PoP Distance: 50-800km fiber: 0.25 - 4ms
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0- PoP to Internet Distance: 50km fiber: 0.25 - 0.5ms
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0- Total one-way delay: 4.3 - 11.1ms
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0- Theoretical minimum RTT: 8.6ms - 22.2ms, call it 15.4ms<= br> >
> This includes no transmission delay, queuing delay,
> processing/fragmentation/reassembly/etc, and no time-division multiple= xing.
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:09 AM David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote= :
>
>> I think it depends on if you are looking at datacenter-to-datacent= er
>> latency of
>> home to remote datacenter latency :-)
>>
>> my rule of thumb for cross US ping time has been 80-100ms latency = (but
>> it's been
>> a few years since I tested it).
>>
>> I note that an article I saw today said that Elon is saying that l= atency
>> will
>> improve significantly in the near future, that up/down latency is = ~20ms
>> and the
>> additional delays pushing it to the 80ms range are 'stupid pac= ket routing'
>> problems that they are working on.
>>
>> If they are still in that level of optimization, it doesn't su= rprise me
>> that
>> they haven't really focused on the bufferbloat issue, they hav= e more
>> obvious
>> stuff to fix first.
>>
>> David Lang
>>
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0On Fri, 16 Jul 2021, Wheelock, Ian wrote:
>>
>>> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 10:21:52 +0000
>>> From: "Wheelock, Ian" <ian.wheelock@comms= cope.com>
>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, David P. Reed <dpreed= @deepplum.com>
>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"= <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink and bufferbloat status?
>>>
>>> Hi David
>>> In terms of the Latency that David (Reed) mentioned for Califo= rnia to
>> Massachusetts of about 17ms over the public internet, it seems a b= it faster
>> than what I would expect. My own traceroute via my VDSL link shows= 14ms
>> just to get out of the operator network.
>>>
>>> https://www.wondernetwork.com=C2=A0 is a ha= ndy tool for checking geographic
>> ping perf between cities, and it shows a min of about 66ms for pin= gs
>> between Boston and San Diego
>> https://wondernetwork.com/ping= s/boston/San%20Diego (so about 33ms for
>> 1-way transfer).
>>>
>>> Distance wise this is about 4,100 KM (2,500 M), and @2/3 speed= of light
>> (through a pure fibre link of that distance) the propagation time = is just
>> over 20ms. If the network equipment between the Boston and San Die= go is
>> factored in, with some buffering along the way, 33ms does seem qui= te
>> reasonable over the 20ms for speed of light in fibre for that 1-wa= y transfer
>>>
>>> -Ian Wheelock
>>>
>>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.= bufferbloat.net> on behalf of
>> David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>> Date: Friday 9 July 2021 at 23:59
>>> To: "David P. Reed" <dpreed@deepplum.com>=
>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"= <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink and bufferbloat status?
>>>
>>> IIRC, the definition of 'low latency' for the FCC was = something like
>> 100ms, and Musk was predicting <40ms. roughly competitive with = landlines,
>> and worlds better than geostationary satellite (and many
>>> External (mailto:david@lang.hm)
>>>
>> https://shared.outlook.inky.com/r= eport?id=3DY29tbXNjb3BlL2lhbi53aGVlbG9ja0Bjb21tc2NvcGUuY29tL2I1MzFjZDA4OTZm= MWI0Yzc5NzdiOTIzNmY3MTAzM2MxLzE2MjU4NzE1NDkuNjU=3D#key=3D19e8545676e28e577c= 813de83a4cf1dc
>>=C2=A0 https://www.inky.com/banner-faq/=C2=A0= https://www.inky.com
>>>
>>> IIRC, the definition of 'low latency' for the FCC was = something like
>> 100ms, and
>>> Musk was predicting <40ms.
>>>
>>> roughly competitive with landlines, and worlds better than geo= stationary
>>> satellite (and many wireless ISPs)
>>>
>>> but when doing any serious testing of latency, you need to be = wired to
>> the
>>> router, wifi introduces so much variability that it swamps the= signal.
>>>
>>> David Lang
>>>
>>> On Fri, 9 Jul 2021, David P. Reed wrote:
>>>
>>>> Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2021 14:40:01 -0400 (EDT)
>>>> From: David P. Reed <dpreed@deepplum.com>
>>>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> Subject: [Starlink] Starlink and bufferbloat status?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Early measurements of performance of Starlink have shown s= ignificant
>> bufferbloat, as Dave Taht has shown.
>>>>
>>>> But...=C2=A0 Starlink is a moving target. The bufferbloat = isn't a hardware
>> issue, it should be completely manageable, starting by simple firm= ware
>> changes inside the Starlink system itself. For example, implementi= ng
>> fq_codel so that bottleneck links just drop packets according to t= he Best
>> Practices RFC,
>>>>
>>>> So I'm hoping this has improved since Dave's measu= rements. How much has
>> it improved? What's the current maximum packet latency under f= ull
>> load,=C2=A0 Ive heard anecdotally that a friend of a friend gets 8= 4 msec. *ping
>> times under full load*, but he wasn't using flent or some othe= r measurement
>> tool of good quality that gives a true number.
>>>>
>>>> 84 msec is not great - it's marginal for Zoom quality = experience (you
>> want latencies significantly less than 100 msec. as a rule of thum= b for
>> teleconferencing quality). But it is better than Dave's measur= ements showed.
>>>>
>>>> Now Musk bragged that his network was "low latency&qu= ot; unlike other high
>> speed services, which means low end-to-end latency.=C2=A0 That got= him
>> permission from the FCC to operate Starlink at all. His number was= , I
>> think, < 5 msec. 84 is a lot more than 5. (I didn't believe= 5, because he
>> probably meant just the time from the ground station to the termin= al
>> through the satellite. But I regularly get 17 msec. between Califo= rnia and
>> Massachusetts over the public Internet)
>>>>
>>>> So 84 might be the current status. That would mean that so= meone at
>> Srarlink might be paying some attention, but it is a long way from= what
>> Musk implied.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PS: I forget the number of the RFC, but the number of pack= ets queued on
>> an egress link should be chosen by taking the hardware bottleneck<= br> >> throughput of any path, combined with an end-to-end Internet under= lying
>> delay of about 10 msec. to account for hops between source and des= tination.
>> Lets say Starlink allocates 50 Mb/sec to each customer, packets ar= e limited
>> to 10,000 bits (1500 * 8), so the outbound queues should be limite= d to
>> about 0.01 * 50,000,000 / 10,000, which comes out to about 250 pac= kets from
>> each terminal of buffering, total, in the path from terminal to pu= blic
>> Internet, assuming the connection to the public Internet is not a = problem.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>
>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1sNc_-1HhGCW7xdirt_lAoAy5Nn5= T6UA85Scjn5BR7QHXtumhrf6RKn78SuRJG7DUKI3duggU9g6hJKW-Ze07HTczYqB9mBpIeALqk5= drQ7nMvM8K7JbWfUbPR7JSNrI75UjiNXQk0wslBfoOTvkMlRj5eMOZhps7DMGBRQTVAeTd5vwXo= QtDgS6zLCcJkrcO2S9MRSCC4f1I17SzgQJIwqo3LEwuN6lD-pkX0MFLqGr2zzsHw5eapd-VBlHu= 5reC4-OEn2zHkb7HNzS1pcueF6tsUE1vFRsWs2SIOwU5MvbKe3J3Q6NRQ40cHI1AGd-i/https:= //lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/lis= tinfo/starlink
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/sta= rlink
--0000000000009143fa05c74112df--