Le 16/10/2023 à 15:26, David Fernández via Starlink a écrit :
Regarding this: "The SDA standard (:
https://www.sda.mil/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/SDA-OCT-Standard-v3.0.pdf)
This document looks like a standard of a communication system. For
example it has a packet format (figure 11 "FSO Payload Frame Format").
One could think about further specifying how to transmit IP packets on it.
requires beaconless PAT without a side channel to sync the two OCTs,
which makes things much harder. Acquisition times are longer, and
initial pointing requires extremely accurate knowledege of the
position of the other side, which greatly increases cost."
Following the example of the SDA (Space Development Agency), ESA has
also now an optical link specification for 2.5 Gbps, 10 Gbps and 100 /
200 /400 Gbps per channel consolidated with the help of 18 European
industries.
Has it? Or is it in project phase?
See the link to ESTOL (ESA Specification for Terabit/sec Optical
Links) here:
https://www.esa.int/Applications/Connectivity_and_Secure_Communications/European_space_firms_set_specifications_for_optical_links
At that URL there is a "ESA Specifications for Terabit/second Optical
Links" https://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/CSC/ESTOL.pdf
It refers some times to "Open ROADM", but not sure what is this "Open
ROADM". The URL http://www.openroadm.org/ is insecure. Its https
counterpart URL tells "SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP".
The ESTOL and OCT frame formats seem to be different (Figure 4 "2.5G OOK
frame structure" vs Figure 11 "FSO Payload Frame Format")
At the same time, there is now this Horizon Europe call for projects
ongoing in the Space destination of Cluster 4
"HORIZON-CL4-2024-SPACE-01-73". Sorry for the acronym speech.
It calls for a few things, among which "High data rate (12.5 to 28 Gbps
or higher 56 Gbps), low consumption, short range links [Target TRL 7]"
among other things.
Maybe ESTOL is the same thing as it is called for by this call, or maybe
ESTOL is for space-to-ground and this call is for ISL. It is not clear
to me.
The ESTOL follows the PAT process of SDA due to compatibility with
existing European terminal suppliers.
The ‘beaconless’ PAT is not necessarily performing worse than having a
side channel; it simply means that the communications wavelength is
used also for initial acquisition and then for tracking.
This is also the approach in EDRS
(https://connectivity.esa.int/european-data-relay-satellite-system-edrs-overview)
and actually SDA has formalized the EDRS approach.
The separate wavelength (or beacon) may provide some advantages in
space to ground links rather than space-space ISLs.
You seem to be understanding the ESTOL specs. I dont.
I might dare saying the following: if one would like interop between
ESTOL and SDA OCT, maybe one wants to make a gateway with an ESTOL and
an SDA OCT interface on it.
And have IP running and on SDA OCT, and on ESTOL.
For that to work, one would need an IP-over-SDA-OCT spec, and an
IP-over-ESTOL spec. These could come in the form of Internet Drafts
proposed at IETF.
It might be also possible that ESTOL does not yet fully exist as a
spec; as such it could be further adapted to be more compatible with
SDA OCT. At that point, a single Internet Draft
"IP-over-OCT-kind-of-ESTOL" would be sufficient to gain interop.
Starlink optical ISL at 100G is most likely reusing the terrestrial
fibre optics COTS transceivers in space, as planned to do by Hydron
(https://connectivity.esa.int/developing-future-optical-highcapacity-satellite-networks-hydron-high-throughput-optical-network)
and ESTOL.
For Hydron: I did not know it, thanks.
For Starlink optical ISL: I think it could be several other things, and
not necessarily ESTOL or Hydron.
Also some ESA calls point to these other laser devices for satcom:
- "TOSIRIS - Direct-to-Earth Laser Communication Terminal" ==> CCSDS.
(is ESTOL the same as CCSDS?)
- TESAT Pixl - maybe the same as TOSIRIS(?)
- "SmallCAT laser communication system" ==> maybe also uses CCSDS.
- "OPTEL-μ: Optical Terminal for Small Satellite LEO Applications" ==>
uses MCS (Modulation and Coding Scheme, but I dont know what is it).
These seem to be small and affordable devices.
All in all, to me, the question is that of interoperability, because
there are so many link layers up there.
Maybe SDA OCT, ESTOL and CCSDS are all the same thing, or maybe not.
The great thing would be to run IP on them.
Alex
Regards,
David
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2023 20:44:06 -0700
From: Mike Puchol <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of
Satellites and Terrestial Networks
Message-ID: <8070d746-1aa0-45a6-8b0f-9bc4f01d1c8d@Spark>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
The ETSI standard you reference is a generic framework for testing &
measuring earth stations connecting to NGSO systems, so they may be using
it, but it’s not mandatory. In any case, the standard doesn’t have any
effect on the RF characteristics, the interoperability, etc.
Regarding ISL, I would doubt they use the SDA OCT standard, except maybe for
Starshield payloads. The SDA standard requires beaconless PAT without a side
channel to sync the two OCTs, which makes things much harder. Acquisition
times are longer, and initial pointing requires extremely accurate
knowledege of the position of the other side, which greatly increases cost.
Best,
Mike
On Sep 2, 2023 at 18:03 -0700, David Fernández via Starlink
<[email protected]>, wrote:
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 <[email protected]>
To: David Lang <[email protected]>
Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
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 <[email protected]> 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 <
[email protected]> 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
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/20230902/9209f929/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
