From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bosmailout02.eigbox.net (bosmailout02.eigbox.net [66.96.189.2]) (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 337BA3B29E for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 02:20:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from bosmailscan07.eigbox.net ([10.20.15.7]) by bosmailout02.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1nMPTG-0004sA-P0 for starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 02:20:26 -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=EvIUEmExJlOWIBKWRgdMCUKqCR2PF4bfcXx6h0848Gw=; b=KY5GPresvDX5YdPKGMzogjM/+x IWXxnDx+5Eh68ei43gQ9IdOxjFu7bIIonXeoeMdGJ6S0jR/AsVr7iN1HO3q19GFi2gaslReKAV0ur Ur/ETFvvFrteVm1sNJTT6MZRf4kWRLJSMVJIwAXjzFXMnrv58Rb4b1f+wYJRtNV6HzxGEyzacQaFO BQkwhNS7w+lFg9pDBj+v65JyYOfIOQsFPOM9LaA0KLMuqcx62l+Q3SgHZr+U+QVWszZxStMrqJ5Ss 0o66R7rJ5R5pfzmCdcLF7Wosf5bQuKlWAne8O/jTe+rx2ufzUc3BAxCcWKSUbk0KcvfrOhbC29PG4 aBpzbG/w==; Received: from [10.115.3.33] (helo=bosimpout13) by bosmailscan07.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1nMPTG-00046P-EU for starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 02:20:26 -0500 Received: from bosauthsmtp16.yourhostingaccount.com ([10.20.18.16]) by bosimpout13 with id y7LN2600K0LoEWa017LR4f; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 02:20:26 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=RNUo47q+ 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=fDA2ljIdu794oBE2xg8A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=gSo4G_p8TylYmX0t:21 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=kbxRQ_lfPIoQnHsAj2-A:22 Received: from c-67-180-86-211.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([67.180.86.211]:53151 helo=SRA6) by bosauthsmtp16.eigbox.net with esmtpa (Exim) id 1nMPTC-0003B9-By; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 02:20:22 -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> In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 23:20:16 -0800 Organization: SRA Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0AA8_01D82779.99674E40" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AdgnrhlRt06KlFvVRQatuLuj/AGAVwADSgMQ 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 07:20:27 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0AA8_01D82779.99674E40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _____ 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_0AA8_01D82779.99674E40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

 

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_0AA8_01D82779.99674E40--