It seems that Starlink follows this norm, although it does not reflect the entire Starlink system specification: https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/303900_303999/303981/01.02.00_30/en_303981v010200v.pdf
Then, for the ISL, I suppose they are following this: https://www.sda.mil/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/SDA-OCT-Standard-v3.0.pdf > Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 17:27:30 +0100 > From: Inemesit Affia <inemesitaf...@gmail.com> > To: David Lang <da...@lang.hm> > Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petre...@gmail.com>, > starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > Subject: Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of > Satellites and Terrestial Networks > Message-ID: > <CAJEhh70CMSk_WAmd9sgXfMDoWZhhz5uPAU=d5ug3rw5xfkw...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > For the US military, starlink has already allowed two antenna/terminal > manufacturers to connect to the network. > > Ball aerospace for aircraft. > > DUJUD(hope I got that right) for regular user terminals. > > Any antenna that connects with OneWeb should theoretically work apart from > the DRM > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 8:36 PM David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote: > >> Exactly my thoughts (I haven't downloaded and read the full report yet). >> What >> are they looking to do with this 'integration'? I can integrate my >> starlink just >> like any other ISP. >> >> or are they looking at the 'cell phones to orbit' functionality thats due >> to >> roll out very suddently >> >> or are they looking for "intergration" as another way to say "force SpaceX >> to >> open the specs for Starlink and allow other user terminals to interact >> with the >> Starlink satellites? >> >> The cynic in me says it's the latter. >> >> long term it may make sense to do this to some degree, but we are WAY too >> early >> to define "Interoperability Standards" and block people from coming up >> with >> better ways to do things. >> >> the Apple vs SpaceX cellphone-to-satellite have completely different ways >> of >> operating, and who wants to tell all the Apple people that their way isn't >> going >> to be the standard (or worse, that it is and they have to give everyone >> else the >> ability to use their currently proprietary protocol) >> >> David Lang >> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023, Inemesit Affia via Starlink wrote: >> >> > With the existence of solutions like OpenMTCProuter, SDWAN, policy based >> > routing or any solution in general that allows combination in a sense of >> > any number of IP links, I really don't see a point for specific >> solutions. >> > Can anyone enlighten me? >> > >> > For home users an issue may be IP blocks for certain services like >> Netflix >> > when the egress is out of a VPN or cloud provider richer than a >> residential >> > provider >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 2:57 PM Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink < >> > starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> Le 30/08/2023 à 14:10, Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink a écrit : >> >>> Here is a report which summarizes the outcome of the last Satellites >> >>> conference >> >>> [ >> >> >> https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/39841-satellite-2023-summary-linking-up >> >> ] >> >>> >> >>> The report highlights the two main hurdles against the integration of >> >>> satellites and terrestrial networks: standardization and business >> model. >> >>> >> >>> "/Most of the pushback against closer integration of terrestrial >> >>> wireless and satellite networks revolved around standardization. This >> >>> may just be growing pains and it likely reflects the relative >> >>> positions of wireless and satellite along the maturity curve, but some >> >>> of the speakers were arguing against standardization. The basis of >> >>> this argument was that the mobile industry only understands standards, >> >>> but the satellite industry is currently differentiating based on >> >>> custom systems and capabilities. The feeling was that the satellite >> >>> industry had focused on technology and not regulations or standards >> >>> and changing that course would not be helpful to the industry in the >> >>> short term. Timing is important in this analysis because almost >> >>> everyone agreed that at some point, standardization would be a good >> >>> thing, but the concern was the best way to get to the point in the >> >>> future. The other interesting argument against closer integration >> >>> between wireless and satellite had to do with the business model. >> >>> Several speakers questioned where the customers would go as >> >>> terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks become more integrated. The >> >>> underlying issues seemed to include who is responsible for solving >> >>> network issues and perhaps more importantly, who recognizes the >> >>> revenue. These issues seem, perhaps a bit simplistically, to be >> >>> similar to early wireless roaming issues. While these issues created >> >>> turbulence in the wireless market, they were solved and that is >> >>> probably a template to address these challenges for the wireless and >> >>> satellite operators."/ >> >>> / >> >>> / >> >>> Comments? >> >> >> >> >> >> It is an interesting report. >> >> >> >> For standardisation standpoint, it seems SDOs do push towards >> >> integration of 5G/6G and satcom; there are strong initiatives at least >> >> at 3GPP (NTN WI proposals) and IETF (TVR WG) in that direction. But >> >> these are SDOs traditionally oriented to land communications, rather >> >> than space satcom. >> >> >> >> I wonder whether space satcom traditional SDOs (which ones?) have >> >> initiated work towards integration with 5G/6G and other land-based >> >> Internet? >> >> >> >> Alex >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Hesham _______________________________________________ Starlink mailing list Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
