Le 10/11/2023 à 17:40, David Lang a écrit :
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
I'm not understanding what you think Starlink is prohibiting
here.
Original poster (Dave, not me) provided this text: "There is no
prohibition against sharing. The closest that document comes to it
is: "The Standard Service Plan is designed for personal, family,
or household use.""
If that text is true, I tend to agree with the interpretation that
that text prohibits sharing the wifi.
It says 'personal, family, household'. That certainly means to be:
not my visitors, not my neighbors.
it says 'designed for' not 'limited to'
They list this, but then they also ship a handful of dishes to rural
Indian villages to be setup in the community center for everyone to
use. That would be against the rules per your interpretation.
your interpretation would also prohibit businesses from using
Starlink and allowing customers to use it. Since this is a reasonably
common use of Starlink and I have not heard ANY stories of SpaceX
objecting to it, I don't see any evidence to back that they intend
for it to be that restricted.
In the past it was the case like that with non-space home ISPs.
There were requests to modify that, business to open. The response
was the appearance of business that shared the wifi (independent
wifi sharing boxes, free for end users), independent of the ISPs.
It led into the development of the concept of sharing WiFi among
users of same ISP, and agreements between ISPs. The same could
happen now with Starlink.
no, the ability to use other people's network connections on the same
ISP is not something that developed from users sharing wifi. If you
have any evidence that it was, please correct me.
It dates many years back but here it is: I used 'FON wifi' when it
appeared, for several years. It was a box that you plug in ethernet at
home, scotch its wifi antena on window, and thus give wifi to all people
in the street. The counterpart was that I could use wifi wherever else
FON was present. Since then many things happened. FON was acquired by
an ISP, and other ISPs started to offer similar service.
However, and I will post separately, there are so many unknowns and
so much noise about Starlink in general, changing all the time,
that it is hard to make a definitive oppinion. Basically one does
not know what is real until one tries it, and I have not tried it
(I am not a starlink user but considering it).
I currently pay for 3 starlinks, one that my sister has been using
since early in the beta period in rural Michigan (on a farm, two
miles outside the limits of the nearest villiage), one that I use
full time at my house (as a redundent connection) and one that is
configured for mobile use that is used for camping and search and
rescue work
Ask away and I will respond with my experience.
My most pressing question is that of use of IPv6. I developped a theory
that says that countrary to what's being advertised in many places, the
IPv6 of starlink is a /64 prefix, not a /56. It means it is not
extensible other than by NAT66. Those who get a /56 it is not from
starlink but from their non-starlink wifi router provider, and it is
encapsulated either in IPv6 or in IPv4. It means it is not native IPv6
but some kind of kludge or hack if you wish.
To make sure that theory is true, if I had a starlink DISHY, I'd simply
check with wireshark the packets on the Ethernet link between wifi
router and DISHY. That packet dump would show IPv6 RAs with /64 inside,
and would also show - maybe - IPv6-in-IPv6 packets or IPv6-in-IPv4
packets to a dst address that is not starlink's. (IP-in-IP packets are
shown as two subsequent packets, and some field value tells so).
Someone contradicting that theory would show other sign in IP packets
showing that there is a /56.
Until then it's fuzzy.
DO you use IPv6 on starlink, is it extensible?
Alex
David Lang
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
