From: Adam Thompson <athompson@merlin.mb.ca>
To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: [Starlink] VPN woes, recommendations?
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 16:30:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YQBPR0101MB89254CCAC6EB4DB67D5BD6C59BA19@YQBPR0101MB8925.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1502 bytes --]
Hi, all.
We've been trying to develop a plug-and-play L2 VPN over Starlink, using Aruba Hospitality-series Remote APs like their RAP-505H.
It's not going great, and I'm wondering about several Starlink-specific issues.
First, having multiple devices in serial is generally not a great idea for reliability. Can we realistically plug our remote AP directly into the dish, still? (This is using Starlink Business, FWIW.). I know we lose access to the Starlink app, but we also lose a NATing router and an unwanted wifi AP, so that's probably a net zero. I just don't know what other dangers/problems that topology might cause.
Secondly, we're only able to push about 30Mbps through the (magical Aruba-proprietary GRE+IPsec) tunnel. The bandwidth-delay equations suggest we should be seeing around 100Mbps, not 30. (The Aruba devices are rated for ~2Gbps encrypted at the site end, and ~7Gbps at the head end, so presumably that's not the bottleneck.)
So:
* does anyone have corroborating *or* contradicting evidence of VPN performance over Starlink's particular flavor of Long Fat Pipe, and
* does anyone have any positive (or negative, I guess!) recommendations for cloud-managed VPN devices that can do at least 100M and magically work from behind double-NAT/CGNAT like we see with Starlink? Bonus points if it does L2 tunnels or can run a dynamic routing protocol.
* Other comments or suggestions welcome, too.
Thanks,
-Adam
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2189 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2023-02-17 16:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-17 16:30 Adam Thompson [this message]
2023-02-17 16:34 ` Dave Taht
2023-02-17 16:36 ` Daniel C. Eckert
2023-02-17 16:38 ` Adam Thompson
2023-02-17 16:39 ` Adam Thompson
2023-02-17 16:45 ` Dave Taht
2023-02-17 17:38 ` Adam Thompson
2023-02-17 17:40 ` Dave Taht
2023-02-17 16:47 ` Nathan Owens
2023-02-17 18:29 ` Michael Richardson
2023-02-17 21:01 ` David Lang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/starlink.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YQBPR0101MB89254CCAC6EB4DB67D5BD6C59BA19@YQBPR0101MB8925.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM \
--to=athompson@merlin.mb.ca \
--cc=starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox