From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de [IPv6:2a00:1398:2::10:81]) (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 7B1943B29D for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 09:46:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from i72vorta.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.71.26] helo=i72vorta.tm.kit.edu) by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtpsa port 25 iface 141.3.10.8 id 1m8NPL-0000nF-5k; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:46:07 +0200 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by i72vorta.tm.kit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB4C5420340; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:46:06 +0200 (CEST) To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net, Dave Taht From: "Bless, Roland (TM)" Organization: Institute of Telematics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:46:06 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-Checksum: v3zoCAcc32ckk X-ATIS-Timestamp: iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de esmtpsa 1627393567.213098624 Subject: [Starlink] In-Network Bloat? 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, 27 Jul 2021 13:46:09 -0000 Hi, > Please? newer folk here, please briefly introduce yourselves and your > interests in starlink's stuff? So, I'm Roland and an academic interested in low latency congestion control and buffer sizing. I've read several academic papers about Starlink and other LEO constellations (see exemplary list below). Several papers emphasized the advantages of reducing the propagation delay for longer distances using Starlink (with or without inter-satellite links, e.g., see both papers from Mark Handley). My impression was, that the latency improvement is in a range that can be easily rendered void in case buffer bloat happens inside the satellites during forwarding (either via ISL to other satellites or to ground relays). So bufferbloat inside the terminals is one factor, but how about bufferbloat during forwarding inside Starlink? Do the satellites use FIFO and tail drop or at least some AQM? Regards, Roland [BhSi19] Bhattacherjee D. and Singla A. Network topology design at 27,000 km/hour Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments And Technologies (CoNext), pp. 341–354, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1145/3359989.3365407 [GKLB+20] Giuliari G., Klenze T., Legner M., Basin D., Perrig A. and Singla A. Internet backbones in space. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 50:1, 2020, pp. 25–37, Online publication date: 23-Mar-2020. https://doi.org/10.1145/3390251.3390256 [Hand18] Handley M. Delay is Not an Option: Low Latency Routing in Space. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 85–91, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3286062.3286075 [Hand19] Handley M. Using ground relays for low-latency wide-area routing in megaconstellations Proceedings of the 18th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets ‘19), 2019, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 125–132, https://doi.org/10.1145/3365609.3365859