From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vk1-xa2e.google.com (mail-vk1-xa2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a2e]) (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 81B783B29D for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 08:30:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-vk1-xa2e.google.com with SMTP id 71dfb90a1353d-49a319c9e17so584817e0c.1 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 05:30:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1695645059; x=1696249859; 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=FQf0D73lf+EQ4mCrjyodR9BH9nxCX13kOg7yPITyrnk=; b=dPF0FG9xcajIDGFY5SQo4dofGJebdmv4oZhJUlyT39X9kPOMn0Adw2Ss6f+tQGnE5X VnLk0mAnVtKgv6ZMWucxh7/ImsZEeSzD/8GRPQ8tn9HEgDdlp+QrU9Ubj2kSOAduI1pv jDgJ4cURvTJ+E8LvEDCNQAXOiY5Bn/XQ9fhLuMHBJ3gz132pBim9IX4oMoxqmKi2OyP5 m/D/+nrvw2P0GW+x5MF8UqR5TFW2ilsuzSASFm6s3nocH/1W7y+rMmuDxFs76CqpQOJ8 dg6j0D1t19lDx46D0wscYYuYA799xE2ENw9cfPCRR9W17k/s+lzGoRGMSMpf4erHIuxo GbiA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1695645059; x=1696249859; 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=FQf0D73lf+EQ4mCrjyodR9BH9nxCX13kOg7yPITyrnk=; b=fT55CPBxNfVA4IFCnyn+7Zy/cxegstxNwT8W8IPCRQubCGsF9GeVp8PXeDfeJHhfee d377yovh6fP33OA502sIe54k+6xSRc60Jz/5Ijv+AWEjWDOgXWdZ3ugK/hzstQtkfod6 igCU9sXzk1awIF7PfxIKrhN0Z/xsAsOruSN7RWuOLXbX5AaMzWbfWqDbteQFzMSEQqgH lxHiR9Lgx0DMU7J0wBysIdLnEZVlE6YFRVxtBqjD+6OYLHQ3RpRtspRQUeZqH2Zy175T k3gzyZscuUWK/vYZIJJapF0O/wHKIiNdlcaq/ZKZgsMQC7ppCt3ObVhc12jE9lKQ0MOx OfzA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw9PNVsOzukq5mgoqqnRU825NoL/1yeVml7PhfqHNmP4Jgj3EmA UUWCyxkTOY1LzJuBIDThsF+/ZwE82cIfg5IJAnA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHQYpRb5weH5yTNmHyEIjQsSfmFDoNwZ1GIXsSPx7m6XUqx+vR+0FzU3E5qu5pKWmdXNbE5tILcx/n/vbEpgGc= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:e041:0:b0:48f:c2d6:6311 with SMTP id x62-20020a1fe041000000b0048fc2d66311mr1874250vkg.0.1695645058514; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 05:30:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9d96e8d6-8a40-4353-b7a3-49881742f1a7@auckland.ac.nz> <04809a35-4c06-43b6-bc2e-b69de3214946@gmail.com> <9283a186-e960-4106-ad87-ff5c6a97da7e@gmail.com> <1oor055r-p02p-3o25-9056-p257s819q308@ynat.uz> <81cd0857-be5b-42e9-91f7-78379cea1466@gmail.com> <78r6q6ps-pn91-913p-5p41-0621n7724p9n@ynat.uz> In-Reply-To: <78r6q6ps-pn91-913p-5p41-0621n7724p9n@ynat.uz> From: Frantisek Borsik Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 14:30:22 +0200 Message-ID: To: David Lang , Dave Taht via Starlink Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000060c35e06062e21fe" Subject: Re: [Starlink] APNIC56 last week 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: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 12:30:59 -0000 --00000000000060c35e06062e21fe Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There are horrible latencies observed on wired - including fiber, and FWA with good QoE solutions beats fiber (without it) anytime. So it's not the function of the transport only, but rather the convergence between the transport (be it fiber, FWA, 5G or LEO) and it's latency/jitter/bufferbloat solution. All the best, Frank Frantisek (Frank) Borsik https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 Skype: casioa5302ca frantisek.borsik@gmail.com On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 10:59=E2=80=AFAM David Lang via Starlink < starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Sep 2023, Alexandre Petrescu wrote: > > > Apart the AI's inability aspect, it stays interesting if future LEO > Internet > > access systems competes to fiber in the right range. > > wired (including fiber) is going to beat wireless pretty much anywhere > it's > available. Wireless (and LEO) have the advantage that it's EXPENSIVE to > run > wires, so they start to shine when the use density decreases (and even > there, > there will be areas where 'fiber is bing run down this road anyway, so > let's > offer service to people along the way to earn a few penny's and some good > PR) > > the quirk where very long range communication can be slightly lower > round-trip > time by first hopping up into space is balanced by the more limited > bandwidth > available through that space connection (you have to get through miles of > atmosphere, and that's going to limit your throughput compared to > millimeters to > get into the fiber) > > > The timestamped technologies should be compared. Starlink today's 20ms > > should be compared to today's advanced 5G 1ms, and not to 4G 50ms. > Future > > LEO Internet access should be compared to future 6G terrestrial and > future > > FTTH, because they also evolve. > > True, but when you are looking at limits imposed by known physics, it's a > pretty > safe bet. Yes, it is possible that quantum entanglement will translate > into FTL > communications that can be used to replace everything we know, but that's > rather > unlikely for at least a LONG time. > > David Lang > > > Alex > > > > > >> The laser communication system is about *40% faster* than fiber due to > the > >> speed of light in vacuum > >> < > https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/version-2-starlink-with-lasers-and-= gen-2-spacex-starlink-bigger-and-faster.html>^1 > > >> < > https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/version-2-starlink-with-lasers-and-= gen-2-spacex-starlink-bigger-and-faster.html>. > > >> The number of laser transponders in a second-generation Starlink > satellite > >> is not mentioned in the information I found. However, it is worth > noting > >> that the second-generation Starlink satellites are expected to be > >> significantly more capable than their predecessors > >> < > https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/version-2-starlink-with-lasers-and-= gen-2-spacex-starlink-bigger-and-faster.html>^1 > > >> < > https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/version-2-starlink-with-lasers-and-= gen-2-spacex-starlink-bigger-and-faster.html>. > > >> They will be larger and much faster, with a capacity of up to *80 Gbps > per > >> satellite*, compared to *18 Gbps* in the current version > >> < > https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/version-2-starlink-with-lasers-and-= gen-2-spacex-starlink-bigger-and-faster.html>^1 > > >> < > https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/version-2-starlink-with-lasers-and-= gen-2-spacex-starlink-bigger-and-faster.html>. > > >> The proposed Starlink Gen2 constellation, consisting of approximately > >> 30,000 satellites, would have a total instantaneous bandwidth of at > least > >> *500 terabits per second (Tbps) over land*, which is around 1800 Tbps > >> including ocean coverage > >> < > https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/version-2-starlink-with-lasers-and-= gen-2-spacex-starlink-bigger-and-faster.html>^1 > > >> < > https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/version-2-starlink-with-lasers-and-= gen-2-spacex-starlink-bigger-and-faster.html > >. > >> > >> Please note that the information I provided is based on available > sources > >> and may not cover all the details about the second-generation Starlink > >> satellites. For more specific information, it is recommended to refer > to > >> official sources or SpaceX=E2=80=99s announcements. > >> > >> Is there anything else I can help you with? =F0=9F=98=8A > >> > >> Learn more: > >> 1. nextbigfuture.com > >> < > https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/version-2-starlink-with-lasers-and-= gen-2-spacex-starlink-bigger-and-faster.html > > > >> 2. arstechnica.com > >> < > https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/01/spacex-adds-laser-= links-to-starlink-satellites-to-serve-earths-polar-areas/ > > > >> 3. spaceflightnow.com > >> < > https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/09/14/spacex-launches-first-full-batch-of= -laser-equipped-starlink-satellites/>=E2=80=94 see > > >> less > >> > >> " *(End of BING Response)* > >> > >> Hesham > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Sep 23, 2023, 2:55 PM Larry Press via Starlink > >> wrote: > >> > >> In his first Starlink simulation, Mark Hadley assumed five > >> transponders per satellite -- Two in-plane, two adjacent, and one > >> crossing: > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3479tkagiNo&list=3DPLrRMhEONgz06oMXQOlj= B5BoZxZw6cShLN&index=3D3 > >> < > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3479tkagiNo&list=3DPLrRMhEONgz06oMXQOlj= B5BoZxZw6cShLN&index=3D3 > > > >> > >> In his next Starlink simulation, Mark Hadley assumed four: > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DQEIUdMiColU&list=3DPLrRMhEONgz06oMXQOlj= B5BoZxZw6cShLN&index=3D2 > >> < > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DQEIUdMiColU&list=3DPLrRMhEONgz06oMXQOlj= B5BoZxZw6cShLN&index=3D2 > > > >> > >> I guess he assumed the relative velocities were too high for the > >> crossing connection. > >> > >> I asked Bard "How many laser transponders are in a > >> second-generation Starlink satellite?" and it said "four." > >> I asked ChatGPT "How many laser transponders are in a > >> second-generation Starlink satellite?" and it said it did not know= . > >> I asked Bard again and the second time it said it did not know. > >> When I pointed out that it had told me "four" the first time I > >> asked, Bard apologized for its previous answer. > >> > >> I remain an "AI" skeptic: > >> > https://circleid.com/posts/20230721-google-bard-fails-to-answer-satellite= -internet-questions > >> > >> *From:* Starlink on > >> behalf of David Lang via Starlink > >> *Sent:* Friday, September 22, 2023 1:41 AM > >> *To:* Alexandre Petrescu > >> *Cc:* starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net < > starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> > >> *Subject:* Re: [Starlink] APNIC56 last week > >> I believe that I read that STarlink has 5 lasers per sat. but > >> whatever the > >> number, it's a tiny number compared to the number of satellites > >> that they have > >> up there. > >> > >> As you are looking at 'trains', check their altitude. They aren't > >> going to > >> shuffle sats around much, it's expensive in terms of fuel and they > >> are only > >> allowed to provide service when they are in their proper orbits. > >> > >> We know the lasers are in operation as they are providing service > >> to places more > >> than one sat hop away from ground stations. We also know they have > >> a lot of > >> ground stations around to share the load. > >> > >> We have almost no details on the specific modules they are using, > >> and none on > >> what routing they are using. > >> > >> David Lang > >> > >> > >> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023, > >> Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink wrote: > >> > >> > Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:26:26 +0200 > >> > From: Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink > >> > >> > Reply-To: Alexandre Petrescu > >> > To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > >> > Subject: Re: [Starlink] APNIC56 last week > >> > > >> > > >> > Le 21/09/2023 =C3=A0 21:05, Inemesit Affia via Starlink a =C3=A9= crit : > >> >> Not going to go into details but lasers have been identified in > >> photos > >> >> of the sats and one of the component suppliers is known. (The > >> scale is > >> >> novel, not the tech, demisabiliy is new though) > >> > > >> > 4 or 2 lasers on each sat (N-S, E-W) is potentially a very > >> different > >> > matter from an IP routing standpoint. It still is a reduced set > of > >> > variables, for a routing protocol (it is not like there being an > >> > arbitrary number of IP interfaces, it's just 2 or 4). > >> > > >> > For component manufacturers: yes, I heard about a few > >> manufacturers of > >> > such equipment for laser comms for LEO sats, experimented. > >> There is > >> > public information about a few of them. I dont know which is > >> considered > >> > by starlink, but there is not my worry. There is also a > difference > >> > between laser links between sats on different orbit altitudes > (e.g. > >> > laser for ISL for GEO to MEO) and lasers between sats on a same > >> orbit > >> > altitude, or on a same orbit. It's three different things, with > >> > different sets of requirements: focusing, power levels, distance > >> ranges. > >> > > >> > At the lowest limit (cheapest, less powerful, less range > >> distance), I > >> > suppose it is possible to use simply LiFi optical links (a sort > >> of WiFi > >> > but with light). If so, then it is very easy to have IP on it. > >> > > >> > There is also an 'optical' spec that was circulated here on this > >> list > >> > > >> ( > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.sda.mil/wp-content/uploads/2022/0= 4/SDA-OCT-Standard-v3.0.pdf__;!!P7nkOOY!pso4rogBStK7jR7pEg21ACCfJyL_ZCltZip= 5K7pxmJhmaSKfOY1RgwXzW4EtPOvEhS9XoLRaKS8QbVoEgYhXDWmzfQ$ > >> ), > >> > although it seemed to me to figure on kepler's website, not on > >> > starlink's. In that spec, it is said Ethernet, among other > >> things. On > >> > Ethernet, IP can run easily. > >> > > >> >> > >> >> Starlink can't deliver to Antarctica or Northern parts of Alask= a, > >> >> Ascension Island, Diego Garcia, Easter Island, Vanuatu, Iran > >> without > >> >> ISL's etc > >> > > >> > I'll have to look where these places are. > >> > > >> > When looking at starlink satellites I often see trains forming a= nd > >> > lasting for a while. Someone said these sats are like that > >> (trains) > >> > prior to be put on a more evenly distanced, in-orbit; but some > time > >> > passed, and they continue this kind of behaviour: form denser > >> trains, > >> > then distance more evenly, and back again. So I am not sure the= se > >> > 'trains' are ephemeral. They seem to be in such 'train' > >> structure while > >> > above some particular continents or areas, but not sure. It > >> takes a lot > >> > of time to make a meaning of it. > >> > > >> > Also, now here are at least two kinds of starlink subscription > >> plans: > >> > 40EUR/month and 287EUR/month, for fixed vs mobile. > >> > > >> >> > >> >> North South links seem to work but not East West (if they exist= ) > >> > > >> > Yes, good question. It makes a lot of difference whether there > >> are 2 or > >> > 4 laser links on each sat. It also makes a lot of difference if > >> trying > >> > to make IP routing work there (assuming there could be 2 or 4 IP > >> > interfaces for lasers). > >> > > >> > This (number of ISL links on a starlink sat) can have an impact > >> on how > >> > people show LEO satellite topologies in Internet Drafts at IETF. > >> > > >> > Alex > >> > > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023, 2:20 PM Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Le 19/09/2023 =C3=A0 06:39, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink a = =C3=A9crit : > >> >> > FWIW, I gave a talk about Starlink - insights from a year > >> in - > >> >> at last > >> >> > week's APNIC56 conference in Kyoto: > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://conference.apnic.net/56/program/progr= am/*/day/6/technical-2/__;Iw!!P7nkOOY!pso4rogBStK7jR7pEg21ACCfJyL_ZCltZip5K= 7pxmJhmaSKfOY1RgwXzW4EtPOvEhS9XoLRaKS8QbVoEgYjUChNXHQ$ > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Thanks for the presentation. > >> >> > >> >> I would like to ask what do you mean by "Method #2: "space > >> >> lasers""and > >> >> "Not all Starlink satellites have > >> >> lasers" on slide 5? > >> >> > >> >> It seems to be saying there is inter-satellite > >> communications. The > >> >> need > >> >> of that seems to stem from the lack of ground 'teleport' > >> that is > >> >> necessary for DISHY-SAT-Internet communications, so a > >> SAT-to-SAT > >> >> communication is apparently used with lasers. I can agree > with > >> >> the need. > >> >> > >> >> What standard is used for these lasers? > >> >> > >> >> Is this ISL communicaiton within the starlink constellation= a > >> >> supposition or a sure thing? > >> >> > >> >> Other presentations of starlink mentioned on this list dont > >> talk > >> >> about > >> >> this lasers between sats (dont show lasers on the sats), > >> but kepler > >> >> talks about optical links, and also there is talk about > >> ISOC LEO > >> >> Internet about such 'lasers from space'. > >> >> > >> >> (I must say that I thought previously that there were only > >> 2 or 3 > >> >> ground > >> >> teleports overall in EU and USA, but I see now there is a > >> teleport > >> >> in NZ > >> >> too). > >> >> > >> >> (for price comparison: it is said 100USD monthly, but in > >> France right > >> >> now the monthly subscription is at around 40 Euros; this > >> competes > >> >> very > >> >> advantageously to other satcoms ISPs for rural areas > >> non-covered > >> >> by 5G; > >> >> the cellular monthly subscriptions are still much more > >> advantageous, > >> >> where there is 5G, of course). > >> >> > >> >> Alex > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > Also well worth looking at is Geoff Huston's excellent > >> piece on the > >> >> > foreseeable demise of TCP in favour of QUIC in the same > >> session. > >> >> One > >> >> > of Geoff's main arguments is that the Internet is > >> becoming local, > >> >> > i.e., most traffic goes between a CDN server and you, and > >> most > >> >> data is > >> >> > becoming proprietary to the application owner, meaning it > >> suits the > >> >> > Googles and Facebooks of this world very well not to be > using > >> >> TCP for > >> >> > its transport, but rather pull the transport specifics > >> into the > >> >> > application layer where the have full control. > >> >> > > >> >> > Food for thought, especially since LEO networks are a > >> >> particularly bad > >> >> > place to put local content caches, since the concept of > >> what's > >> >> "local" > >> >> > in a LEO network changes constantly, at around 20,000 > >> miles an > >> >> hour or > >> >> > so. Spoke to a Rwandan colleague who installs Starlink > >> there and > >> >> sees > >> >> > all traffic to anywhere go via the US with RTTs of nearly= 2 > >> >> seconds, > >> >> > even if the Rwandan user is trying to access a Rwandan > >> service. > >> >> > > >> >> > About to hop onto a plane (ZK-NZJ) tonight with free WiFi > >> (Ka band > >> >> > GEO) enroute to Auckland in the hope of getting a better > >> experience > >> >> > than last time when the system seemed to run out of IP > >> addresses on > >> >> > its DHCP. > >> >> > > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> Starlink mailing list > >> >> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > >> >> > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starli= nk__;!!P7nkOOY!pso4rogBStK7jR7pEg21ACCfJyL_ZCltZip5K7pxmJhmaSKfOY1RgwXzW4Et= POvEhS9XoLRaKS8QbVoEgYgJ4na9hA$ > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> Starlink mailing list > >> >> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > >> >> > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starli= nk__;!!P7nkOOY!pso4rogBStK7jR7pEg21ACCfJyL_ZCltZip5K7pxmJhmaSKfOY1RgwXzW4Et= POvEhS9XoLRaKS8QbVoEgYgJ4na9hA$ > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Starlink mailing list > >> > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > >> > > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starli= nk__;!!P7nkOOY!pso4rogBStK7jR7pEg21ACCfJyL_ZCltZip5K7pxmJhmaSKfOY1RgwXzW4Et= POvEhS9XoLRaKS8QbVoEgYgJ4na9hA$ > >> > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > --00000000000060c35e06062e21fe Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There are horrible latencies observed on wired - including= fiber, and FWA with good QoE solutions beats fiber (without it) anytime.So it's not the function of the transport only, but rather the conve= rgence between the transport (be it fiber, FWA, 5G or LEO) and it's lat= ency/jitter/bufferbloat solution.


All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik

<= p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34)">=C2=A0

https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik

<= p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34)">Signal, Telegram, Whats= App: +421919416714=C2=A0

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gmail.com



On Mon, Sep 25,= 2023 at 10:59=E2=80=AFAM David Lang via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:<= br>
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> Apart the AI's inability aspect, it stays interesting if future LE= O Internet
> access systems competes to fiber in the right range.

wired (including fiber) is going to beat wireless pretty much anywhere it&#= 39;s
available. Wireless (and LEO) have the advantage that it's EXPENSIVE to= run
wires, so they start to shine when the use density decreases (and even ther= e,
there will be areas where 'fiber is bing run down this road anyway, so = let's
offer service to people along the way to earn a few penny's and some go= od PR)

the quirk where very long range communication can be slightly lower round-t= rip
time by first hopping up into space is balanced by the more limited bandwid= th
available through that space connection (you have to get through miles of <= br> atmosphere, and that's going to limit your throughput compared to milli= meters to
get into the fiber)

> The timestamped technologies should be compared.=C2=A0 Starlink today&= #39;s 20ms
> should be compared to today's advanced 5G 1ms, and not to 4G 50ms.= =C2=A0 Future
> LEO Internet access should be compared to future 6G terrestrial and fu= ture
> FTTH, because they also evolve.

True, but when you are looking at limits imposed by known physics, it's= a pretty
safe bet. Yes, it is possible that quantum entanglement will translate into= FTL
communications that can be used to replace everything we know, but that'= ;s rather
unlikely for at least a LONG time.

David Lang

> Alex
>
>
>> The laser communication system is about *40% faster* than fiber du= e to the
>> speed of light in vacuum
>> <https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/version= -2-starlink-with-lasers-and-gen-2-spacex-starlink-bigger-and-faster.html>^1
>> <https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/version= -2-starlink-with-lasers-and-gen-2-spacex-starlink-bigger-and-faster.html>.
>> The number of laser transponders in a second-generation Starlink s= atellite
>> is not mentioned in the information I found. However, it is worth = noting
>> that the second-generation Starlink satellites are expected to be =
>> significantly more capable than their predecessors
>> <https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/version= -2-starlink-with-lasers-and-gen-2-spacex-starlink-bigger-and-faster.html>^1
>> <https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/version= -2-starlink-with-lasers-and-gen-2-spacex-starlink-bigger-and-faster.html>.
>> They will be larger and much faster, with a capacity of up to *80 = Gbps per
>> satellite*, compared to *18 Gbps* in the current version
>> <https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/version= -2-starlink-with-lasers-and-gen-2-spacex-starlink-bigger-and-faster.html>^1
>> <https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/version= -2-starlink-with-lasers-and-gen-2-spacex-starlink-bigger-and-faster.html>.
>> The proposed Starlink Gen2 constellation, consisting of approximat= ely
>> 30,000 satellites, would have a total instantaneous bandwidth of a= t least
>> *500 terabits per second (Tbps) over land*, which is around 1800 T= bps
>> including ocean coverage
>> <https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/version= -2-starlink-with-lasers-and-gen-2-spacex-starlink-bigger-and-faster.html>^1
>> <https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/version= -2-starlink-with-lasers-and-gen-2-spacex-starlink-bigger-and-faster.html>.
>>
>> Please note that the information I provided is based on available = sources
>> and may not cover all the details about the second-generation Star= link
>> satellites. For more specific information, it is recommended to re= fer to
>> official sources or SpaceX=E2=80=99s announcements.
>>
>> Is there anything else I can help you with? =F0=9F=98=8A
>>
>> Learn more:
>> 1. nextbigfuture.com
>> <https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/version= -2-starlink-with-lasers-and-gen-2-spacex-starlink-bigger-and-faster.html>
>> 2. arstechnica.com
>> <https://arstechnica.com/informat= ion-technology/2021/01/spacex-adds-laser-links-to-starlink-satellites-to-se= rve-earths-polar-areas/>
>> 3. spaceflightnow.com
>> <https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/09/14/spacex-launches= -first-full-batch-of-laser-equipped-starlink-satellites/>=E2=80=94= =C2=A0see
>> less
>>
>> " *(End of BING Response)*
>>
>> Hesham
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2023, 2:55 PM Larry Press via Starlink
>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0In his first Starlink simulation, Mark Hadley a= ssumed five
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0transponders per satellite -- Two in-plane, two= adjacent, and one
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0crossing:
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3479tka= giNo&list=3DPLrRMhEONgz06oMXQOljB5BoZxZw6cShLN&index=3D3
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D347= 9tkagiNo&list=3DPLrRMhEONgz06oMXQOljB5BoZxZw6cShLN&index=3D3>= ;
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0In his next Starlink simulation, Mark Hadley as= sumed four:
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DQEIUdMi= ColU&list=3DPLrRMhEONgz06oMXQOljB5BoZxZw6cShLN&index=3D2
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DQEI= UdMiColU&list=3DPLrRMhEONgz06oMXQOljB5BoZxZw6cShLN&index=3D2>= ;
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I guess he assumed the relative velocities were= too high for the
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0crossing connection.
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I asked Bard "How many laser transponders = are in a
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0second-generation Starlink satellite?" and= it said "four."
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I asked ChatGPT "How many laser transponde= rs are in a
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0second-generation Starlink satellite?" and= it said it did not know.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I asked Bard again and the second time it said = it did not know.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0When I pointed out that it had told me "fo= ur" the first time I
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0asked, Bard apologized for its previous answer.=
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I remain an "AI" skeptic:
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://circleid.com/posts/20230721-google-bard-fails-t= o-answer-satellite-internet-questions
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0*From:* Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bu= fferbloat.net> on
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0behalf of David Lang via Starlink <starlink@lists= .bufferbloat.net>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0*Sent:* Friday, September 22, 2023 1:41 AM
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0*To:* Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.co= m>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0*Cc:* starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <starlink@lists= .bufferbloat.net>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0*Subject:* Re: [Starlink] APNIC56 last week
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I believe that I read that STarlink has 5 laser= s per sat. but
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0whatever the
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0number, it's a tiny number compared to the = number of satellites
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0that they have
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0up there.
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0As you are looking at 'trains', check t= heir altitude. They aren't
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0going to
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0shuffle sats around much, it's expensive in= terms of fuel and they
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0are only
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0allowed to provide service when they are in the= ir proper orbits.
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0We know the lasers are in operation as they are= providing service
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0to places more
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0than one sat hop away from ground stations. We = also know they have
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0a lot of
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0ground stations around to share the load.
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0We have almost no details on the specific modul= es they are using,
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0and none on
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0what routing they are using.
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0David Lang
>>
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 On Fri, 22 Sep 2023,
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink wrote:
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:26:26 +0200
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> From: Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Reply-To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petres= cu@gmail.com>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Subject: Re: [Starlink] APNIC56 last week<= br> >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Le 21/09/2023 =C3=A0 21:05, Inemesit Affia= via Starlink a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> Not going to go into details but laser= s have been identified in
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0photos
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> of the sats and one of the component s= uppliers is known. (The
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0scale is
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> novel, not the tech, demisabiliy is ne= w though)
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> 4 or 2 lasers on each sat=C2=A0 (N-S, E-W)= is potentially a very
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0different
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> matter from an IP routing standpoint.=C2= =A0 It still is a reduced set of
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> variables, for a routing protocol (it is n= ot like there being an
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> arbitrary number of IP interfaces, it'= s just 2 or 4).
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> For component manufacturers: yes, I heard = about a few
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0manufacturers of
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> such equipment for laser comms for LEO sat= s, experimented.=C2=A0
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0There is
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> public information about a few of them.=C2= =A0 I dont know which is
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0considered
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> by starlink, but there is not my worry.=C2= =A0 There is also a difference
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> between laser links between sats on differ= ent orbit altitudes (e.g.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> laser for ISL for GEO to MEO) and lasers b= etween sats on a same
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0orbit
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> altitude, or on a same orbit.=C2=A0 It'= ;s three different things, with
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> different sets of requirements: focusing, = power levels, distance
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0ranges.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> At the lowest limit (cheapest, less powerf= ul, less range
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0distance), I
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> suppose it is possible to use simply LiFi = optical links (a sort
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0of WiFi
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> but with light).=C2=A0 If so, then it is v= ery easy to have IP on it.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> There is also an 'optical' spec th= at was circulated here on this
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0list
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(https://urldefens= e.com/v3/__https://www.sda.mil/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/SDA-OCT-Standard-= v3.0.pdf__;!!P7nkOOY!pso4rogBStK7jR7pEg21ACCfJyL_ZCltZip5K7pxmJhmaSKfOY1Rgw= XzW4EtPOvEhS9XoLRaKS8QbVoEgYhXDWmzfQ$
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0),
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> although it seemed to me to figure on kepl= er's website, not on
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> starlink's.=C2=A0 In that spec, it is = said Ethernet, among other
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0things.=C2=A0 On
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Ethernet, IP can run easily.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> Starlink can't deliver to Antarcti= ca or Northern parts of Alaska,
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> Ascension Island, Diego Garcia, Easter= Island, Vanuatu, Iran
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0without
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> ISL's etc
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> I'll have to look where these places a= re.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> When looking at starlink satellites I ofte= n see trains forming and
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> lasting for a while.=C2=A0 Someone said th= ese sats are like that
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(trains)
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> prior to be put on a more evenly distanced= , in-orbit; but some time
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> passed, and they continue this kind of beh= aviour: form denser
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0trains,
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> then distance more evenly, and back again.= =C2=A0 So I am not sure these
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> 'trains' are ephemeral.=C2=A0 They= seem to be in such 'train'
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0structure while
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> above some particular continents or areas,= but not sure.=C2=A0 It
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0takes a lot
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> of time to make a meaning of it.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Also, now here are at least two kinds of s= tarlink subscription
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0plans:
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> 40EUR/month and 287EUR/month, for fixed vs= mobile.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> North South links seem to work but not= East West (if they exist)
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Yes, good question.=C2=A0 It makes a lot o= f difference whether there
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0are 2 or
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> 4 laser links on each sat.=C2=A0 It also m= akes a lot of difference if
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0trying
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> to make IP routing work there (assuming th= ere could be 2 or 4 IP
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> interfaces for lasers).
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> This (number of ISL links on a starlink sa= t) can have an impact
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0on how
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> people show LEO satellite topologies in In= ternet Drafts at IETF.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Alex
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023, 2:20 PM Alexandr= e Petrescu via Starlink
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wr= ote:
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Le 19/09/2023 = =C3=A0 06:39, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > FWIW, I g= ave a talk about Starlink - insights from a year
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0in -
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 at last
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > week'= s APNIC56 conference in Kyoto:
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 >
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 >
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://urldefense.c= om/v3/__https://conference.apnic.net/56/program/program/*/day/6/technical-2= /__;Iw!!P7nkOOY!pso4rogBStK7jR7pEg21ACCfJyL_ZCltZip5K7pxmJhmaSKfOY1RgwXzW4E= tPOvEhS9XoLRaKS8QbVoEgYjUChNXHQ$
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Thanks for the= presentation.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 I would like t= o ask what do you mean by "Method #2: "space
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 lasers"&q= uot;and
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 "Not all = Starlink satellites have
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 lasers" o= n slide 5?
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 It seems to be= saying there is inter-satellite
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0communications. The
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 need
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 of that seems = to stem from the lack of ground 'teleport'
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0that is
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 necessary for = DISHY-SAT-Internet communications, so a
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0SAT-to-SAT
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 communication = is apparently used with lasers.=C2=A0 I can agree with
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 the need.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 What standard = is used for these lasers?
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Is this ISL co= mmunicaiton within the starlink constellation a
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 supposition or= a sure thing?
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Other presenta= tions of starlink mentioned on this list dont
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0talk
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 about
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 this lasers be= tween sats (dont show lasers on the sats),
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0but kepler
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 talks about op= tical links, and also there is talk about
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0ISOC LEO
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Internet about= such 'lasers from space'.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 (I must say th= at I thought previously that there were only
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A02 or 3
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 ground
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 teleports over= all in EU and USA, but I see now there is a
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0teleport
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 in NZ
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 too).
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 (for price com= parison: it is said 100USD monthly, but in
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0France right
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 now the monthl= y subscription is at around 40 Euros;=C2=A0 this
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0competes
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 very
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 advantageously= to other satcoms ISPs for rural areas
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0non-covered
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 by 5G;
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 the cellular m= onthly subscriptions are still much more
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0advantageous,
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 where there is= 5G, of course).
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Alex
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 >
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > Also well= worth looking at is Geoff Huston's excellent
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0piece on the
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > foreseeab= le demise of TCP in favour of QUIC in the same
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0session.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 One
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > of Geoff&= #39;s main arguments is that the Internet is
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0becoming local,
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > i.e., mos= t traffic goes between a CDN server and you, and
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0most
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 data is
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > becoming = proprietary to the application owner, meaning it
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0suits the
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > Googles a= nd Facebooks of this world very well not to be using
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 TCP for
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > its trans= port, but rather pull the transport specifics
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0into the
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > applicati= on layer where the have full control.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 >
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > Food for = thought, especially since LEO networks are a
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 particularly b= ad
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > place to = put local content caches, since the concept of
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0what's
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 "local&qu= ot;
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > in a LEO = network changes constantly, at around 20,000
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0miles an
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 hour or
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > so. Spoke= to a Rwandan colleague who installs Starlink
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0there and
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 sees
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > all traff= ic to anywhere go via the US with RTTs of nearly 2
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 seconds,
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > even if t= he Rwandan user is trying to access a Rwandan
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0service.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 >
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > About to = hop onto a plane (ZK-NZJ) tonight with free WiFi
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(Ka band
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > GEO) enro= ute to Auckland in the hope of getting a better
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0experience
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > than last= time when the system seemed to run out of IP
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0addresses on
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > its DHCP.=
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 >
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> ______________________________________= _________
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Starlink maili= ng list
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists= .bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink__;!!P7nkOOY!pso4rogBStK7jR7pEg21ACCfJyL_= ZCltZip5K7pxmJhmaSKfOY1RgwXzW4EtPOvEhS9XoLRaKS8QbVoEgYgJ4na9hA$
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> ______________________________________= _________
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> Starlink mailing list
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists= .bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink__;!!P7nkOOY!pso4rogBStK7jR7pEg21ACCfJyL_= ZCltZip5K7pxmJhmaSKfOY1RgwXzW4EtPOvEhS9XoLRaKS8QbVoEgYgJ4na9hA$
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> __________________________________________= _____
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Starlink mailing list
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists= .bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink__;!!P7nkOOY!pso4rogBStK7jR7pEg21ACCfJyL_= ZCltZip5K7pxmJhmaSKfOY1RgwXzW4EtPOvEhS9XoLRaKS8QbVoEgYgJ4na9hA$
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0_______________________________________________=
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Starlink mailing list
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://lists.bufferbloat= .net/listinfo/starlink
>>
>_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlin= k@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
--00000000000060c35e06062e21fe--