From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-il1-x130.google.com (mail-il1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::130]) (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 019A23B29E for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 13:35:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-il1-x130.google.com with SMTP id y6so8961513ilj.13 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 10:35:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nathan.io; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ej1E5uNnVKwSCNEGFSXsTOGDotuRLjUz8/k5qRhFojU=; b=dF3KuMxOlU+LdEF6ySt6qCcaTVVQIZJCYioo8l/Zn15oiTkfCysumdOFCDbiUFaNE0 NxcDDeHt+VQAHcL4VMos7iTFSkNmYIA7FpI7oo8pMu2wZtKkkVi/Q8Nk5+lQMgO56AMC k1T/xxsCAFJHLVpG3KBpnByDKRuvVGzG6u+Bpk5XBv64dQik2BgCUEBjWbg4THbkeJiX vTIr7ILWJHgHH4veyWZudc2VkzkXZnOmvrLR2dpKgm4OXd6lSJiyU8poUPCHbkne1+HE lbBOARqL5REDWjpNUCl8ef73awnHPcmRCcF3xMnYMYqFDCzmc1GstyqbEoGLFXPn/SNQ xMsA== 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=ej1E5uNnVKwSCNEGFSXsTOGDotuRLjUz8/k5qRhFojU=; b=q+8hofwHdyutoehueFl33HaLL7DvVXa+nNe0LKF49gFqUFrFdldSoX3T60+gail0E7 iab9Hx4h7fZ8rOsPg7J7LO0dGuK5y8xU7mfQL+GS74n+ElPUvr3hW8vsyfrdgaTVbTRk JGqFDUDlKOTxRVkRag0bHXZLEOS3fckbIkKIifG5j8wcbcNCNvPtJqFh5rQK4ATyT+RW BDlq6LKQ5TP5PY648LRXfOoYQr+tfV6e6X6/PDcCB+RZ3FWJys/1nzbE17SJpTskZqne zr/pxDlTW2LsPfMrKoUFSoSd0BtjxfVE9xnZ9faMZTTLODGoZOEy8/mluG0JnGjQBohK 4dwg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Ttk2uxowCJU3IVLzehZRG6yRwccg9430l2jN1er7FPepfby7X YyzSMgfMLk+5u45LJ3d7iguzWujoDEeFlVQT9m8xKg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxH6eR7q69ybqnn2MOVEFPwBeWLXRM8LfzKHLdIiU5gRevWwZyXuhb9JXZR5k246O8hbGlqeGTS43/f8y+Du94= X-Received: by 2002:a92:c888:: with SMTP id w8mr7115356ilo.140.1626456941163; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 10:35:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1625856001.74681750@apps.rackspace.com> In-Reply-To: From: Nathan Owens Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 10:35:30 -0700 Message-ID: To: Mike Puchol Cc: David Lang , "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" , "David P. Reed" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003890e005c7410437" 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 17:35:42 -0000 --0000000000003890e005c7410437 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. 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 latenc= y 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 I= MHO. > > 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 4-5ms > 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 ge= ts. > > 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 20= ms >> 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 (bu= t >> >> 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 ~20= ms >> >> 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 t= o >> >> 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 14= ms >> >> 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 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 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 of >> >> 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 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/report?id=3DY29tbXNjb3BlL2lhbi53aGVlbG9j= a0Bjb21tc2NvcGUuY29tL2I1MzFjZDA4OTZmMWI0Yzc5NzdiOTIzNmY3MTAzM2MxLzE2MjU4NzE= 1NDkuNjU=3D#key=3D19e8545676e28e577c813de83a4cf1dc >> >> https://www.inky.com/banner-faq/ 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 >> 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 signa= l. >> >>> >> >>> 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 significan= t >> >> bufferbloat, as Dave Taht has shown. >> >>>> >> >>>> But... Starlink is a moving target. The bufferbloat isn't a hardwa= re >> >> issue, it should be completely manageable, starting by simple firmwar= e >> >> 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 much >> 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 (y= ou >> >> want latencies significantly less than 100 msec. as a rule of thumb f= or >> >> teleconferencing quality). But it is better than Dave's measurements >> showed. >> >>>> >> >>>> Now Musk bragged that his network was "low latency" unlike other hi= gh >> >> 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, becaus= e >> he >> >> probably meant just the time from the ground station to the terminal >> >> through the satellite. But I regularly get 17 msec. between Californi= a >> 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 wh= at >> >> Musk implied. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> PS: I forget the number of the RFC, but the number of packets queue= d >> on >> >> an egress link should be chosen by taking the hardware bottleneck >> >> throughput of any path, combined with an end-to-end Internet underlyi= ng >> >> 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 t= o >> >> about 0.01 * 50,000,000 / 10,000, which comes out to about 250 packet= s >> from >> >> each terminal of buffering, total, in the path from terminal to publi= c >> >> 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_lAoAy5Nn5T6UA85Scjn5BR7Q= HXtumhrf6RKn78SuRJG7DUKI3duggU9g6hJKW-Ze07HTczYqB9mBpIeALqk5drQ7nMvM8K7JbWf= UbPR7JSNrI75UjiNXQk0wslBfoOTvkMlRj5eMOZhps7DMGBRQTVAeTd5vwXoQtDgS6zLCcJkrcO= 2S9MRSCC4f1I17SzgQJIwqo3LEwuN6lD-pkX0MFLqGr2zzsHw5eapd-VBlHu5reC4-OEn2zHkb7= HNzS1pcueF6tsUE1vFRsWs2SIOwU5MvbKe3J3Q6NRQ40cHI1AGd-i/https://lists.bufferb= loat.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 > > --0000000000003890e005c7410437 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The other case where they could provide benefit is very lo= ng distance paths --- NY to Tokyo, Johannesburg to London, etc... but presu= mably at high cost, as the capacity will likely be much lower than submarin= e cables.

On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:31 AM Mike Puchol <mike@starlink.sx> wrote:
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.i= o>, 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@commscope.com> >>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, David P. Reed <dpreed@deepplum.com>
>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.buffer= bloat.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 handy tool fo= r 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/pings/boston/Sa= n%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.buffer= bloat.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/report?id=3D= Y29tbXNjb3BlL2lhbi53aGVlbG9ja0Bjb21tc2NvcGUuY29tL2I1MzFjZDA4OTZmMWI0Yzc5Nzd= iOTIzNmY3MTAzM2MxLzE2MjU4NzE1NDkuNjU=3D#key=3D19e8545676e28e577c813de83a4cf= 1dc
>>=C2=A0 https://www.inky.com/banner-faq/=C2=A0 https://www.ink= y.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_lAoAy5Nn5T6UA85Scjn5= BR7QHXtumhrf6RKn78SuRJG7DUKI3duggU9g6hJKW-Ze07HTczYqB9mBpIeALqk5drQ7nMvM8K7= JbWfUbPR7JSNrI75UjiNXQk0wslBfoOTvkMlRj5eMOZhps7DMGBRQTVAeTd5vwXoQtDgS6zLCcJ= krcO2S9MRSCC4f1I17SzgQJIwqo3LEwuN6lD-pkX0MFLqGr2zzsHw5eapd-VBlHu5reC4-OEn2z= Hkb7HNzS1pcueF6tsUE1vFRsWs2SIOwU5MvbKe3J3Q6NRQ40cHI1AGd-i/https://lists.buf= ferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starl= ink
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlin= k@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
--0000000000003890e005c7410437--