From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-x52f.google.com (mail-pg1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52f]) (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 0749B3B2A4 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 12:51:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-56c250ff3d3so759634a12.1 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 09:51:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1693414310; x=1694019110; 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=xvbIV7hxdB6PE2Ys2CHAuCNMkdMLaTZDyECzkW8TDQk=; b=WL3gVb4b18Hd05GzVhKZeEyxZaQiJkIFmmLFVeHx8t5U2meBS1VMkyIAa7woqmAp7G EdA9Yu7AzxnbDyk660vr1vkHuniSS7x43kjjYn+QyPOTr4fqcFrg2VkRlK/1VUtL2U9f f8K+C0ZzN29wt0elTN7uWaX8bfSMd7S26ekGnIVkySZPEwPJkcu/wc0iU2Ta11cg1tHn EgqDANwPKERH4NTAB9QVz5f2hck49TT+zd9mRQ6AKZI81LkTpMfvtd1az2O1nndpo6ZS YLDpMpG2P1WvvXXN5ta5iIyyRPyNH3LAhPL76hDOk9E/CoOv8GF6tAMnTH1nk0qe4bJe Ip8Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1693414310; x=1694019110; 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=xvbIV7hxdB6PE2Ys2CHAuCNMkdMLaTZDyECzkW8TDQk=; b=XnDte4NzNLVXyfJsJWDTeZY+8DgmgDZxK9usIboYdYgjHRUnudQegRV1y4gI/NvcJp eSE73soVEW+PgMEciOGgzm0GpzMcLyjFcwFs6ldw/pjNH0a0zG5Ze3psdb/OWP/WnpE3 UjEhUF9d3CE+NdXpOgd+mrfoIICzYNCZ3FsrdV+YhuYGxT8kIkGXzIffRZPD+p56YWsr GDKEuhPigsS4QqXDmk8l0pGmh3GSjarvCd0hcYVptYP5xp6IeXFR/QkzFGBqy6SvRgMk 4UpLQfMUQb8RUzn4A+3qvoV2h/9iq5Rm0D3VRk9OoD2ipCKluAsarifzTRqEZl+kTWnV p6rg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx1r6dQP22YhlaiXq52haJeqYbNnkSQpgWP3mw7XRRWGBzxCORo 7lNZCiFhWVwhlymUKweHtePhwt2lYq12KoaSfr9RlXQAGsE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFEsZfHVEhaqLFK3vbXhryqc9Lg8941aduv3mQVoH9hDekgm6T55zVea+jowObdScnImqNSKUGvfO+IJXY1XMY= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:91:b0:26d:5c07:ae3e with SMTP id bb17-20020a17090b009100b0026d5c07ae3emr335685pjb.4.1693414309762; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 09:51:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2d05e701-7556-8ae4-122c-e2f2d23feff2@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2d05e701-7556-8ae4-122c-e2f2d23feff2@gmail.com> From: Inemesit Affia Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 17:51:37 +0100 Message-ID: To: Alexandre Petrescu Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000642107060426be86" 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: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 16:51:51 -0000 --000000000000642107060426be86 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable With the existence of solutions like OpenMTCProuter, SDWAN, policy based 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=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 some > > 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 > --000000000000642107060426be86 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
With the existence of solutions like OpenMTCProuter, SDWA= N, policy based 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 sp= ecific 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=C2=A0

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 2:57 PM Alexandre P= etrescu via Starlink <= starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

Le 30/08/2023 =C3=A0 14:10, Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink a =C3=A9crit=C2= =A0:
> Here is a report which summarizes the outcome of the last Satellites <= br> > conference=C2=A0
> [ht= tps://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/39841-satellite-2023-summary-linkin= g-up]
>
> The report highlights the two main hurdles against the integration of =
> satellites and terrestrial networks:=C2=A0standardization 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 some=
> 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 <= br> > 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 <= br> > 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 <= br> > turbulence in the wireless market, they were solved and that is
> probably a template to address these challenges for the wireless and <= br> > 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.=C2=A0 But <= br> 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/listinf= o/starlink
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/sta= rlink
--000000000000642107060426be86--