From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bosmailout07.eigbox.net (bosmailout07.eigbox.net [66.96.189.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 642343B29E for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 02:51:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from bosmailscan08.eigbox.net ([10.20.15.8]) by bosmailout07.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1nMPxf-0002wH-0L for starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 02:51:51 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alum.mit.edu; s=dkim; h=Sender:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date: Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:To:From:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=MTFolR4QjdK8IYG7iU6xLYlsHl5neTR5JcI+qI6w37k=; b=NPdFLF0680X9fL5KsXXIpz4ZM+ zPk1uXLKWYnw356fyV4gmUtBd1st9EoZKL5NAin4uvzTgmEdi06hYp/Cf7GgEVaQRUDb2wKz3Y5wk mZYX1Q/4v5ih6jEhKWpnK6z/lEqLNTOCl7UEPNsGCazCkvDfWfCMbTvbRT0xlf/Uqq6i+Vwzz3iO6 I54aHF5lDO9P63B+qX8hkwnqw4iJ7XiVHcU1yFEpVd/aCk0xMBUyPS98Uuc7yWRkf6guxUbP05dtN /HwieMjY+mqmMZUOnZ/iCzBU7vLuFgwXsYlCxckbJ5541e6O49k5fXFnwO5t04oq28Jhvm48pkdWE apTvDEHg==; Received: from [10.115.3.32] (helo=bosimpout12) by bosmailscan08.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1nMPxe-0004WZ-Lx for starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 02:51:50 -0500 Received: from bosauthsmtp16.yourhostingaccount.com ([10.20.18.16]) by bosimpout12 with id y7rn2600A0LoEWa017rqdS; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 02:51:50 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=d4VuNSrE c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=2OW49aEHms2tn/AeNJ+rfA==:117 a=nIEF4cAZMyOU5h9mcfI6lg==:17 a=oGFeUVbbRNcA:10 a=6ulraYUaiNAA:10 a=r77TgQKjGQsHNAKrUKIA:9 a=kurRqvosAAAA:8 a=klDX9UCSAAAA:8 a=cvQ0z3SJuWnTNW1BSbQA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=HNqc_5YlomGxvSTi:21 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=kbxRQ_lfPIoQnHsAj2-A:22 a=3XWo0MttsPNH2CnpfZ1L:22 Received: from c-67-180-86-211.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([67.180.86.211]:61575 helo=SRA6) by bosauthsmtp16.eigbox.net with esmtpa (Exim) id 1nMPxb-0004HJ-5P; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 02:51:47 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Dick Roy" To: "'Mike Puchol'" , "'Daniel AJ Sokolov'" , "'David Lang'" Cc: References: <1p492142-q944-r494-6s6r-p6q37s57qnq4@ynat.uz> <1F1EB112F8CB446FAB4BF308A76955FA@SRA6> <0ac195f5-3668-4c96-8dec-8a2d59a0bd52@Spark> <866405-s043-n12n-6pqs-46o38r189218@ynat.uz> <38pr9p5s-3ro4-49p9-9535-7o92oqrq62r1@ynat.uz> <80753e77-f7ba-466f-8222-66c16059f600@Spark> In-Reply-To: <80753e77-f7ba-466f-8222-66c16059f600@Spark> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 23:51:42 -0800 Organization: SRA Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0AB9_01D8277D.FCD6F210" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Adgnv8l7znLWUfezRoyAomJN4E4y3QAAQw2A X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE X-EN-UserInfo: f809475445fb8041985048e338e1a001:931c98230c6409dcc37fa7e93b490c27 X-EN-AuthUser: dickroy@intellicommunications.com Sender: "Dick Roy" X-EN-OrigIP: 67.180.86.211 X-EN-OrigHost: c-67-180-86-211.hsd1.ca.comcast.net Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming 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: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 07:51:51 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0AB9_01D8277D.FCD6F210 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All excellent points and right on! Thanks! RR _____ From: Mike Puchol [mailto:mike@starlink.sx] Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 11:42 PM To: 'Daniel AJ Sokolov'; 'David Lang'; dickroy@alum.mit.edu Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: RE: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming I did over-simplify so the point was better understood. On the optical gateways, these exist already: https://mynaric.com/products/ground-capabilities/ Once you have an optical mesh in orbit, the only practical way to provide it with massive capacity is optical links - there isn't enough radio spectrum that would do it (without a massive ground gateway network with enough physical separation). You can create a network of optical gateways that guarantees a number of them will not be impared by cloud cover at any given time. Optical has the advantage of being license-free, too. Best, Mike On Feb 22, 2022, 10:20 +0300, Dick Roy , wrote: _____ From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of Mike Puchol Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 9:35 PM To: Daniel AJ Sokolov; David Lang Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming Actually, laser links would make gateway connectivity *worse*. If we take the scenario attached, one gateway is suddenly having to serve traffic from all UTs that were not previously under coverage. A satellite under full load can saturate two gateway links by itself. If you load, say, 20 satellites in an orbital plane, onto a single gateway, over ISL, you effectively have 5% of each satellite's capacity available (given an equal distribution of demand, of course there will be satellites with no UTs to cover etc.). [RR] I think to do this analysis correctly; one needs to consider the larger system and the time-varying loads on the components thereof. What you say is true; just a bit over-simplified to be maximally useful. Routing through complex congested networks is well-studied problem and hnts at possible solutions can probably be found there:-)) Eventually they will go for optical gateways, it's the only way to get enough capacity to the constellation, specially the 30k satellite version. [RR] What do you mean by ""optical gateway"? An optical link from the satellite to the ground station? That would be real expensive at least power-wise and unreliable. Best, Mike On Feb 22, 2022, 05:17 +0300, David Lang , wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote: On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote: They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more flexibility) Isn't that a very optimistic assessment? :-) Laser links are great for remote locations with very few users, but how could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with too many users? The laser links can reduce the required density of ground stations, but they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground station not built thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations - and, maybe more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does eventually connect to a ground station. Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a small help here and there? My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route the traffic from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm registered with as opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far from my registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station. Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage: 1. satellite bandwidth 2. ground station bandwidth laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the second one. We know that they can do mobile dishes (they are testing it currently on Elon's gulfstream, FAR more mobile that I will ever be :-) ) David Lang _______________________________________________ Starlink mailing list Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink ------=_NextPart_000_0AB9_01D8277D.FCD6F210 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

All excellent points and right on! = Thanks!

 

RR

 

From: Mike = Puchol [mailto:mike@starlink.sx]
Sent: Monday, February = 21, 2022 11:42 PM
To: 'Daniel AJ Sokolov'; = 'David Lang'; dickroy@alum.mit.edu
Cc: = starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: RE: [Starlink] = Starlink Roaming

 

I did over-simplify so the point was better understood. On the = optical gateways, these exist already: https://mynaric.com/products/ground-capabilities/
Once you have an optical mesh in orbit, the only practical way to = provide it with massive capacity is optical links - there isn’t enough radio = spectrum that would do it (without a massive ground gateway network with enough = physical separation). You can create a network of optical gateways that = guarantees a number of them will not be impared by cloud cover at any given time. = Optical has the advantage of being license-free, = too.

 

Best,

Mike

On Feb 22, 2022, 10:20 +0300, Dick Roy = <dickroy@alum.mit.edu>, wrote:

 

 

From: Starlink = [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of Mike = Puchol
Sent: Monday, February = 21, 2022 9:35 PM
To: Daniel AJ Sokolov; = David Lang
Cc: = starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Starlink] = Starlink Roaming

 

Actually, laser links would make gateway connectivity *worse*. If we take the scenario attached, one gateway is suddenly having to serve traffic from all UTs = that were not previously under coverage. 

A satellite under full load can saturate two gateway links by itself. If = you load, say, 20 satellites in an orbital plane, onto a single gateway, = over ISL, you effectively have 5% of each satellite’s capacity available = (given an equal distribution of demand, of course there will be satellites with no UTs = to cover etc.).

[RR] I think to do this = analysis correctly; one needs to consider the larger system and the time-varying = loads on the components thereof. What you say is true; just a bit = over-simplified to be maximally useful. Routing through complex congested networks is = well-studied problem and hnts at possible solutions can probably be found = thereJ<= /i>)



Eventually they will go for optical gateways, it’s the only way to = get enough capacity to the constellation, specially the 30k satellite = version.

[RR] What do you mean by “”optical gateway”? An optical link from the satellite = to the ground station? That would be real expensive at least power-wise and = unreliable.


Best,

Mike

On = Feb 22, 2022, 05:17 +0300, David Lang <david@lang.hm>, = wrote:

On = Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote:

On = 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote:


They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a
bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities = in
the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot = more
flexibility)


Isn't that a very optimistic assessment? :-)

Laser links are great for remote locations with very few users, but = how
could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with too many = users?

The laser links can reduce the required density of ground stations, = but
they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground station not built
thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations - and, = maybe
more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does eventually
connect to a ground station.

Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a = small
help here and there?


My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route the = traffic
from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm registered = with as
opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far from = my
registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station.

Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage:

1. satellite bandwidth
2. ground station bandwidth

laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the second one.

We know that they can do mobile dishes (they are testing it currently on = Elon's
gulfstream, FAR more mobile that I will ever be :-) )

David Lang
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink<= /p>

------=_NextPart_000_0AB9_01D8277D.FCD6F210--