Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Lang <da...@lang.hm>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petre...@gmail.com>
Cc: Hesham ElBakoury <helbako...@gmail.com>, David Lang
<da...@lang.hm>, Dave Taht via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>, sat-...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of
Satellites and Terrestial Networks
Message-ID: <35r3366r-5pr2-83no-716o-7o4r2820n...@ynat.uz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
Le 19/09/2023 à 02:36, Hesham ElBakoury a écrit :
[...]
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023, 5:31 PM David Lang <da...@lang.hm
[...]
Starlink is just another IP path,
Yes.
For IPv6 it might not be that simple. There can be things suggested to
starlink to implement, such as to make it better from an IPv6
standpoint. That includes, and is not limited to, this /64 aspect.
For IP in general (be it IPv4 or IPv6), as long as starlink stays
closed, there might be no interest to suggest anything about IP that
they have not already thought of.
Personally, I think that it's more a situation that they are doing something
that nobody else has done (at least on anything close to this scale) so they
are
scrambling to make it work and finding things that the rest of us are just
speculating about.
IF on the other hand, starlink feels a need to interoperate, then we can
discuss.
interoperate with what is the question.
Interoperate with other ground stations?
include other companies satellites in their space based routing?
Right now there isn't a lot in the way of other space based routing for them
to
possibly be interoperable with, and other systems have been actively hostile
to
Starlink (I don't know if it's mutual or not, I don't see everything, but
the
news I've heard has been primarily other companies trying to use regulations
to
block Starlink, not a basis for cooperation)
I also think that it's a bit early to push for standardization of the links.
We
don't have enough experience to know what really works on this sort of scale
and
dynamic connection environment.
It is possible that starlink does not feel any need to interoperate now.
At that point, the need to interoperate might come as a mandate from
some outside factors. Such factors could be the public-private
cooperations. Other factors could be partnerships that appear when some
organisations feel the need to cooperate. I will not speculate when,
but it happens.
Assuming that such openness appears, with a need to interoperate, then
there certainly will be perspective developped where Starlink is not
just another IP path.
all the tools that you use with any other ISP work on that path (or
are restricted like many other consumer ISPs with dynamic addressing,
no inbound connections, no BGP peering, etc. No reason that the those
couldn't work, SpaceX just opts not to support them on consumer
dishes)
But, these other ISPs (not Starlink) are all standardized.
they are now, but they have not been in the past, and nothing prevents a
networking vendor from introducing new proprietary things that only work on
their equipment and are (hopefully) transparent to users. We actually see
this
with caching, 'wan accelerators', captive portals, etc
I'll turn the question back to you, what is the problem that you think is
there that needs to be solved?
Here is one, but there are potentially more. I would not close the door
to
searching them.
I dont have DISHY, so no first hand experience.
But I suspect the IPv6 it supports it is an IPv6 encapsulated in IPv4.
That
adds to latency, not to say bufferbloat. It brings in a single point of
failure too (if it fails, then all fails).
is there some testing that I can do to help you with this?
personally, I suspect that even IPv4 is encapsulated in some way.
Then, when they'll want to remove that they'd hit into the /64 issue.
I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to here, sorry.
David Lang
Alex
David Lang
Thanks, Hesham
On Sun, Sep 17, 2023, 12:59 PM David Lang via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
<mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
it's very clear that there is a computer in the dishy that you
are talking
to. You get the network connection while the dishy is not connected
to the
satellites (there's even a status page and controls, stowing and
unstowing
for example)
I think we've seen that the dishy is running linux (I know the
routers run
an old openwrt), but I don't remember the details of the dishy
software.
David Lang
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink wrote:
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2023 19:21:50 +0200 From: Alexandre Petrescu via
Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>>
Reply-To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petre...@gmail.com
<mailto:alexandre.petre...@gmail.com>>
To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
<mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of
Satellites and
Terrestial Networks
Le 16/09/2023 à 01:32, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink a écrit :
On 16/09/2023 5:52 am, David Lang wrote:
In addition to that Ulrich says, the dishy is a full
computer, it's
output is ethernet/IP and with some adapters or cable
changes, you
can plug it directly into a router.
We've done that with the Yaosheng PoE Dishy adapter - actually
plugged
a DHCP client straight in - and it "works" but with a noticeably
higher
rate of disconnects.
It is good to know one can plug a DHCP client into the Ethernet
of the
DISHY and receive DHCP replies.
But that would be only a lead into what kind of DHCPv4 is
supported, or
not.
I would ask to know whether the DHCP server runs on the DISHY, or
whether it is on the ground network of starlink, i.e. the reply
to DHCP
request comes after 50ms, or after 500microseconds (timestamp
difference
can be seen in the wireshark run on that Ethernet).
This (DHCP server daemon on dishy or on ground segment) has an
impact of
how IPv6 can be, or is, made to work.
This kind of behaviour of DHCP - basically asking who
allocates an address - has seen a continous evolution in 3GPP
cellular
networks since
they appeared. Nowadays the DHCP behaviour is very complex in
a 3GPP
network; even in a typical smartphone there are intricacies
about where
and how the DHCP client and server works. With it comes the
problem of
/64 in cellular networks (which some dont call a problem, but I
do).
So, it would be interesting to see whether starlink has the
same /64
problem as 3GPP has, or is free of it (simply put: can I
connect several
Ethernet subnets in my home to starlink, in native IPv6 that is, or
not?).
Alex
_______________________________________________ Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
<mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
<https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
