From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pj1-x1033.google.com (mail-pj1-x1033.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1033]) (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 0FEC53B29D for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2023 12:27:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1033.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-26d5970cd28so1601850a91.2 for ; Fri, 01 Sep 2023 09:27:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1693585664; x=1694190464; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zKeVGK6XMLRG1zzP+ArSwPmNpc/+M1eEaryJ6KpJuTc=; b=NMXgNEIBpbCi94LHb80wkRJR4TvG1GB7poNpc3LOQYyGTEMbpfy30no4AZcRW9MHxj SuCX9iNhGPWLidVVIJMGgsI9h4GaW7HZ8DStIp3ZDoNFDYDDE1juYhSEOm+PTbv7LlFe B6xXcy0Rrb+wq4wzHDL7N7cbyIwrc5EHwnbGH5xmP4aK6CbtYxm8lM13aCL+fE4aX0CJ U07Te3c1xeSudqeDXoxYbkOJgMVSR+xEHfCFt92ePtAT8mhCkQWUtlHKqHZatMYCNjyD 8bkAcOee8c0M2f6d7XmPVGNGmXiQAggpgK3ndWst08zPGM50Ebc9r5At378ibJRKVS87 VRRA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1693585664; x=1694190464; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=zKeVGK6XMLRG1zzP+ArSwPmNpc/+M1eEaryJ6KpJuTc=; b=RbfHxJcwVsvBlF9F5C9Az1KO9kF7rJvrvbmpbGmnfyTyg9rRQJO0rb3FMUuFrnDGgH sa7+q5ZMTilD1sfQPaJcay87FEp+mqmF3sQmHWFBLltm1GY9CGBA4hr+2mIdbmjKISvD nKu0TWybl+Dd6qdxvwSscwRncsd53fLbsEnIye9ujVZJz1u4Mk4oYhA5/PoV3jQl7NYp 3TOoJe228sRRES4J74kI0f6QfKr9wHcKv6wo0rchIjB+Ct4k750fJsD8IUSEKSt40FgJ wWtvDw4DKxtHo+TvZhXsrgBSCcg0yhc4DWopX/oCEPjrhbCbfvY2M1xdX4bmn6qEr41S Y5oQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzN9HMkRDnYBVy/UqZIyGmwMo2viidAqldVQ8dY98iPRoduC0eK iVtYu0jiZhll9PENheM5XehMv7jiChz6tgqQ5S9ynoYIrh4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF79+KnUVwd3sKhEcp7EVLtBgafTfs7ihbCVjfSGi1q0et3zffWYT92zzVoMXf8oApbJscuhpKY/H2kjsv84Q0= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:d715:b0:262:ff1c:bc33 with SMTP id y21-20020a17090ad71500b00262ff1cbc33mr2746517pju.13.1693585663739; Fri, 01 Sep 2023 09:27:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2d05e701-7556-8ae4-122c-e2f2d23feff2@gmail.com> <4o116qp9-6108-91r8-pn91-o37o6629npqo@ynat.uz> In-Reply-To: <4o116qp9-6108-91r8-pn91-o37o6629npqo@ynat.uz> From: Inemesit Affia Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 17:27:30 +0100 Message-ID: To: David Lang Cc: Alexandre Petrescu , starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e24d2806044ea3ad" 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: Fri, 01 Sep 2023 16:27:45 -0000 --000000000000e24d2806044ea3ad Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 from 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 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 > 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 too > 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 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 > 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 base= d > > routing or any solution in general that allows combination in a sense o= f > > 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=A9crit= : > >>> Here is a report which summarizes the outcome of the last Satellites > >>> conference > >>> [ > >> > https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/39841-satellite-2023-summary-li= nking-up > >> ] > >>> > >>> The report highlights the two main hurdles against the integration of > >>> satellites and terrestrial networks: standardization and business > model. > >>> > >>> "/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 som= e > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > --000000000000e24d2806044ea3ad Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
For the US military, starlink has already allowed two ant= enna/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 from the DRM

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 8:36 PM David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
Ex= actly 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 tha= ts due to
roll out very suddently

or are they looking for "intergration" as another way to say &quo= t;force SpaceX 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 too e= arly
to define "Interoperability Standards" and block people from comi= ng up with
better ways to do things.

the Apple vs SpaceX cellphone-to-satellite have completely different ways o= f
operating, and who wants to tell all the Apple people that their way isn= 9;t going
to be the standard (or worse, that it is and they have to give everyone els= e 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 so= lutions.
> Can anyone enlighten me?
>
> For home users an issue may be IP blocks for certain services like Net= flix
> when the egress is out of a VPN or cloud provider richer than a reside= ntial
> 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=A9= crit :
>>> Here is a report which summarizes the outcome of the last Sate= llites
>>> conference
>>> [
>> https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/39841-satellite-2023-summary-lin= king-up
>> ]
>>>
>>> The report highlights the two main hurdles against the integra= tion of
>>> satellites and terrestrial networks: standardization and busin= ess model.
>>>
>>> "/Most of the pushback against closer integration of terr= estrial
>>> wireless and satellite networks revolved around standardizatio= n. This
>>> may just be growing pains and it likely reflects the relative<= br> >>> positions of wireless and satellite along the maturity curve, = but some
>>> of the speakers were arguing against standardization. The basi= s of
>>> this argument was that the mobile industry only understands st= andards,
>>> but the satellite industry is currently differentiating based = on
>>> custom systems and capabilities. The feeling was that the sate= llite
>>> industry had focused on technology and not regulations or stan= dards
>>> and changing that course would not be helpful to the industry = in the
>>> short term. Timing is important in this analysis because almos= t
>>> 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 integrat= ion
>>> between wireless and satellite had to do with the business mod= el.
>>> Several speakers questioned where the customers would go as >>> terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks become more integrate= d. The
>>> underlying issues seemed to include who is responsible for sol= ving
>>> network issues and perhaps more importantly, who recognizes th= e
>>> revenue. These issues seem, perhaps a bit simplistically, to b= e
>>> similar to early wireless roaming issues. While these issues c= reated
>>> turbulence in the wireless market, they were solved and that i= s
>>> probably a template to address these challenges for the wirele= ss 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 l= east
>> at 3GPP (NTN WI proposals) and IETF (TVR WG) in that direction.=C2= =A0 But
>> these are SDOs traditionally oriented to land communications, rath= er
>> than space satcom.
>>
>> I wonder whether space satcom traditional SDOs (which ones?) have<= br> >> initiated work towards integration with 5G/6G and other land-based=
>> Internet?
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>> Hesham
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> 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/sta= rlink
--000000000000e24d2806044ea3ad--