Re: Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic
Marshall Eubanks t...@multicasttech.com writes: When I was working with Svalbard, Internet connectivity was through a satellite link at about 2.5 degrees elevation looking through a notch in the mountains. I don't think it has changed It has, as Steinar says. For those interested in the necessary elevation at 78 degrees north, I found a nice picture of the antennas here: http://www.mydarc.de/la0by/isfjord.jpg There aren't any mountains in front of the the antennas. However there is a mountain between Isfjord Radio and Longyearbyen (the main settlement), requiring a relay station on the radio link between these. Bjørn
Re: Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic
On Jan 8, 2009, at 6:29 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote: Marshall Eubanks t...@multicasttech.com writes: When I was working with Svalbard, Internet connectivity was through a satellite link at about 2.5 degrees elevation looking through a notch in the mountains. I don't think it has changed It has, as Steinar says. For those interested in the necessary elevation at 78 degrees north, I found a nice picture of the antennas here: http://www.mydarc.de/la0by/isfjord.jpg There aren't any mountains in front of the the antennas. However there is a mountain between Isfjord Radio and Longyearbyen (the main settlement), requiring a relay station on the radio link between these. The NyAlesund SGO http://siempre.arcus.org/4DACTION/wi_alias_fsDrawPage/1/107 is some distance North of Longyearbyen (how many places can say that ?), and I used to have a nice picture, which alas I cannot find, of the satellite link (not the 20 meter dish in the picture) apparently pointing at the mountains. It does indeed have fiber now, and has been used for eVLBI http://www.haystack.mit.edu/tech/vlbi/evlbi/index.html Regards Marshall Bjørn
Re: Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic
On 2009-01-07, at 01:00, JF Mezei wrote: Northern communities in Canada's arctic rely exclusively on satellite for voice/data. Ditto most Pacific Island nations... Not a lot of data flowing comparatively, but it is their only option so it is more of a mission critical thing than a backup. ... although most Pacific Islanders I have met who are not on cable routes are somewhat tolerant about multi-week outages, perhaps because the alternative to tolerance is not obvious. Joe
Re: Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic
French Polynesia has no fiber links at all and relies exclusively on satellite and maybe radio for internet access. It looks, though, like they may finally get fiber sometime in the next decade : http://www.newstin.com/tag/us/95233925 Marshall On Jan 7, 2009, at 1:00 AM, JF Mezei wrote: Northern communities in Canada's arctic rely exclusively on satellite for voice/data. Not a lot of data flowing comparatively, but it is their only option so it is more of a mission critical thing than a backup.
RE: Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic
I lived in a Caribbean country where, at the time, most of their LD traffic was over satellite. While people didn't like it, there were times that there was no public off-island access for a few hours at a time. It's just a fact of life, and people get used to it. Those who don't buy a satellite phone. Frank -Original Message- From: Paul Donner [mailto:pdon...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 2:00 AM To: Sean Donelan Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic Satellites often sit at the edge of the network. The orbital last mile for individual users as well as in-country (Africa for e.g.) ISPs and Enterprise networks. When they go, often there is no backup (except maybe another satellite connection). Sean Donelan wrote: On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Paul Donner wrote: WRT Kevin's query, if you are concerned about a solar incident and it's affects on satcom, you might want to take a look at what user base (e.g. which mobile users and what impact loss of comm will have on what they are doing) is affected rather than understanding the volumes that are affected as this might provide a much more thorough understanding of any impact. But that is merely my two cents worth. Yep, consider the Galaxy IV satellite incident. The loss of a single satellite had a significant impact on its user population for several days/month. Other satellites can be moved into an orbital slot, and dishes can be re-pointed; but Galaxy IV lead to some interesting (i.e. unexpected to some users) failures. I'm not sure how many hospitals realized their in-house pager systems relied on a satellite.
RE: Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic
It depends on where in some cases. Take Greenland for example. Prior to Tele Greenland possibly completing the Greenland Connect cable[1] real soon now (Halifax to Nuuk, Nuuk to Iceland, branched to Qaqortoq, with xcon to UK and Denmark) I seem to recall that a large amount of their capacity was via satellite from Godthab(Nuuk) to Denmark. In this case, you're likely talking 100%. Almost all of your remote cases are going to be in a similiar situation ie. Svarlsbad, most stuff above t~N60^ parallel (or so) etc. [1] Tele Greenland IT News Item (see last paragraph, Brian Buus Pedersen is Tele's CEO) Best, Martin Hannigan -- Martin Hannigan http://www.verneglobal.com/ Senior Director e: hanni...@verneglobal.com Verne Global Datacenters c: +16178216079 Keflavik, Icelandf: +16172347098 From: kevin.sm...@dca.state.fl.us [kevin.sm...@dca.state.fl.us] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 15:34 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic All, Participting in a severe solar event EXERCISE. Can anyone give me an educated guesstimate of the percentage of backbone traffic that is satellite dependent vs. that which is totally land-based? Thanks Kevin Smith Information Systems Services Department of Community Affairs kevin.sm...@dca.state.fl.us [preferred] 850.922.9921 [voice] 850.487.3376 [fax] -- Sent from a BlackBerry Wireless Handheld Florida has a broad public records law and all correspondence, including email addresses, may be subject to disclosure.
Re: Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic
When I was working with Svalbard, Internet connectivity was through a satellite link at about 2.5 degrees elevation looking through a notch in the mountains. I don't think it has changed Regards Marshall On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: It depends on where in some cases. Take Greenland for example. Prior to Tele Greenland possibly completing the Greenland Connect cable[1] real soon now (Halifax to Nuuk, Nuuk to Iceland, branched to Qaqortoq, with xcon to UK and Denmark) I seem to recall that a large amount of their capacity was via satellite from Godthab(Nuuk) to Denmark. In this case, you're likely talking 100%. Almost all of your remote cases are going to be in a similiar situation ie. Svarlsbad, most stuff above t~N60^ parallel (or so) etc. [1] Tele Greenland IT News Item (see last paragraph, Brian Buus Pedersen is Tele's CEO) Best, Martin Hannigan -- Martin Hannigan http://www.verneglobal.com/ Senior Director e: hanni...@verneglobal.com Verne Global Datacenters c: +16178216079 Keflavik, Icelandf: +16172347098 From: kevin.sm...@dca.state.fl.us [kevin.sm...@dca.state.fl.us] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 15:34 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic All, Participting in a severe solar event EXERCISE. Can anyone give me an educated guesstimate of the percentage of backbone traffic that is satellite dependent vs. that which is totally land-based? Thanks Kevin Smith Information Systems Services Department of Community Affairs kevin.sm...@dca.state.fl.us [preferred] 850.922.9921 [voice] 850.487.3376 [fax] -- Sent from a BlackBerry Wireless Handheld Florida has a broad public records law and all correspondence, including email addresses, may be subject to disclosure.
Re: Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic
When I was working with Svalbard, Internet connectivity was through a satellite link at about 2.5 degrees elevation looking through a notch in the mountains. I don't think it has changed It has. Svalbard now has undersea cable connection to the Norwegian mainland. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Undersea_Cable_System Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Re: Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic
At least in the US, satellite use is fairly limited compared to fiber and copper, mainly in the following areas - TV broadcast - Data and voice to remote areas (a few hundred Alaska villages, some connectivity up to oil drilling areas in Alaska, though there's also fiber, plus some Internet in non-wired parts of the US. I'm not aware of regular telco use of satellites for service in the middle 48 states. Is Alohanet or something like it still running in Hawaii?) - Some emergency backup applications such as restoration for carriers (redundant cables are nice, but you need access in multiple failure scenarios such as floods and earthquakes.) - Specialized enterprise applications (some years ago, VSAT was fairly common for credit-card support at gas stations, malls, etc. I know one grocery store chain that finally moved to terrestrial in the late 90s, forced by Microsoft application protocols that couldn't handle the VSAT latency.) -- Thanks; Bill Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far. And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.
Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic
All, Participting in a severe solar event EXERCISE. Can anyone give me an educated guesstimate of the percentage of backbone traffic that is satellite dependent vs. that which is totally land-based? Thanks Kevin Smith Information Systems Services Department of Community Affairs kevin.sm...@dca.state.fl.us [preferred] 850.922.9921 [voice] 850.487.3376 [fax] -- Sent from a BlackBerry Wireless Handheld Florida has a broad public records law and all correspondence, including email addresses, may be subject to disclosure.
Re: Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic
On Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 03:34:31PM -0500, kevin.sm...@dca.state.fl.us wrote: Participting in a severe solar event EXERCISE. Can anyone give me an educated guesstimate of the percentage of backbone traffic that is satellite dependent vs. that which is totally land-based? Depends on the country. I suspect in the USA, it's close to 100% land-based. In places in central Africa, it's probably close to 100% satellite based. Simon -- Simon Lockhart | * Sun Server Colocation * ADSL * Domain Registration * Director|* Domain Web Hosting * Internet Consultancy * Bogons Ltd | * http://www.bogons.net/ * Email: i...@bogons.net *
Re: Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic
Kevin, Satellite transport is common mainly in areas where land based infrastructure is not feasible. In developed nations this is almost exclusively the case. Satellite latency is far too high to rely on it for routine communications unless used as a last resort. Best regards, Jeff On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:34 PM, kevin.sm...@dca.state.fl.us wrote: All, Participting in a severe solar event EXERCISE. Can anyone give me an educated guesstimate of the percentage of backbone traffic that is satellite dependent vs. that which is totally land-based? Thanks Kevin Smith Information Systems Services Department of Community Affairs kevin.sm...@dca.state.fl.us [preferred] 850.922.9921 [voice] 850.487.3376 [fax] -- Sent from a BlackBerry Wireless Handheld Florida has a broad public records law and all correspondence, including email addresses, may be subject to disclosure. -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc. Look for us at HostingCon 2009 in Washington, DC on August 10th - 12th at Booth #401.
Re: Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, kevin.sm...@dca.state.fl.us wrote: Participting in a severe solar event EXERCISE. Can anyone give me an educated guesstimate of the percentage of backbone traffic that is satellite dependent vs. that which is totally land-based? The last FCC statistics I found researching this last year. 2006 Satellites carry 0.22% of US international circuits. There are 14,346 US international circuits via satellite. http://www.donelan.com/overseas.html
Re: Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic
Jeffrey, While technically you are correct, I would say that you probably should also add a category for mobile communications LAND/SEA/AIR. The traffic for these will be increasing in time as vendors are starting to put switches and routers on-board spacecraft making applications that were once borderline, because of delay, more acceptable. Depending on what you are doing (eg. comm between two satellite ground stations, mobile or stationary) the application can benefit from from reduced RTT due to this innovation. One-way delay would thus be about 250ms. This is greater than the generally accepted 150ms for a voice call but with good voice quality 250ms is not bad. This of course is based on GEO sats. LEO or MEO satellites are much closer to the earth so the delay would be less but they present a whole host of other complexities. While satellites will probably never come close to the volume of ground-based comm, they will cater to niche markets, military, mobile and disadvantaged users. WRT Kevin's query, if you are concerned about a solar incident and it's affects on satcom, you might want to take a look at what user base (e.g. which mobile users and what impact loss of comm will have on what they are doing) is affected rather than understanding the volumes that are affected as this might provide a much more thorough understanding of any impact. But that is merely my two cents worth. -Donner Jeffrey Lyon wrote: Kevin, Satellite transport is common mainly in areas where land based infrastructure is not feasible. In developed nations this is almost exclusively the case. Satellite latency is far too high to rely on it for routine communications unless used as a last resort. Best regards, Jeff On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:34 PM, kevin.sm...@dca.state.fl.us wrote: All, Participting in a severe solar event EXERCISE. Can anyone give me an educated guesstimate of the percentage of backbone traffic that is satellite dependent vs. that which is totally land-based? Thanks Kevin Smith Information Systems Services Department of Community Affairs kevin.sm...@dca.state.fl.us [preferred] 850.922.9921 [voice] 850.487.3376 [fax] -- Sent from a BlackBerry Wireless Handheld Florida has a broad public records law and all correspondence, including email addresses, may be subject to disclosure.
Re: Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic
Northern communities in Canada's arctic rely exclusively on satellite for voice/data. Not a lot of data flowing comparatively, but it is their only option so it is more of a mission critical thing than a backup.
Re: Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Paul Donner wrote: WRT Kevin's query, if you are concerned about a solar incident and it's affects on satcom, you might want to take a look at what user base (e.g. which mobile users and what impact loss of comm will have on what they are doing) is affected rather than understanding the volumes that are affected as this might provide a much more thorough understanding of any impact. But that is merely my two cents worth. Yep, consider the Galaxy IV satellite incident. The loss of a single satellite had a significant impact on its user population for several days/month. Other satellites can be moved into an orbital slot, and dishes can be re-pointed; but Galaxy IV lead to some interesting (i.e. unexpected to some users) failures. I'm not sure how many hospitals realized their in-house pager systems relied on a satellite.
Re: Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic
JF Mezei wrote: Northern communities in Canada's arctic rely exclusively on satellite for voice/data. Not a lot of data flowing comparatively, but it is their only option so it is more of a mission critical thing than a backup. Also high latitudes are problematic as far as your link budget to geostationary satellites goes in the first place. Switching to an alternative satellite in the event of a failure may be more challenging as a result.
Re: Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic
Satellites often sit at the edge of the network. The orbital last mile for individual users as well as in-country (Africa for e.g.) ISPs and Enterprise networks. When they go, often there is no backup (except maybe another satellite connection). Sean Donelan wrote: On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Paul Donner wrote: WRT Kevin's query, if you are concerned about a solar incident and it's affects on satcom, you might want to take a look at what user base (e.g. which mobile users and what impact loss of comm will have on what they are doing) is affected rather than understanding the volumes that are affected as this might provide a much more thorough understanding of any impact. But that is merely my two cents worth. Yep, consider the Galaxy IV satellite incident. The loss of a single satellite had a significant impact on its user population for several days/month. Other satellites can be moved into an orbital slot, and dishes can be re-pointed; but Galaxy IV lead to some interesting (i.e. unexpected to some users) failures. I'm not sure how many hospitals realized their in-house pager systems relied on a satellite.
