Iris will allow troops to communicate over the net from remote regions
A programme to kick-start the use of internet communications in space
has been announced by the US government.
The Department of Defense's Iris project will put an internet router
in space by the start of 2009.
It will allow voice, video and data communications for US troops using
standards developed for the internet.
Eventually Iris could extend the net into space, allowing data to flow
directly between satellites, rather than sending it via ground
stations.
"Iris is to the future of satellite-based communications what Arpanet
was to the creation of the internet in the 1960s," said Don Brown, of
Intelsat General, one of the companies who will build the platform.
Arpanet (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network), the predecessor
of the internet, was developed by the United States Department of
Defense.
Remote access
The Iris (Internet Router Protocol in Space) project has been given
the go ahead after winning funding from the US Department of Defense,
under its Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) programme.
The programme aims to develop advanced concepts and put "innovative
concepts into the hands of war fighters in the field."
The Iris project is one of seven that has been given funding this
year. Others include development of smart sensors and counter
camouflage technology.
Iris is a three year programme to develop a satellite platform and
"space hardened router".
A router is a piece of hardware that directs packets of information
around a network.
The specially designed equipment will be developed by network
specialist Cisco while the geostationary satellite, IS-14, will be
built by Intelsat.
When launched in 2009 it will allow troops to communicate over the
internet from the remotest regions from Europe Africa and the
Americas.
"Iris extends the internet into space, integrating satellite systems
and the ground infrastructure for warfighters, first responders and
others who need seamless and instant communications," said Bill
Shernit, CEO of Intelsat general.
After initial testing the satellite will be opened up for commercial
use.
Cyber space
Launching Iris could also signal the beginning of the development of
the internet in space.
At the moment most satellites have to communicate with one another
through ground stations or via radio signals to a relay satellite.
Deploying routers on satellites would allow them to communicate
directly with one another using common internet standards, known as
internet protocol (IP).
"The Iris architecture allows direct IP routing over satellite,
eliminating the need for routing via a ground-based teleport," said Mr
Brown.
It also raises the possibility of routinely transferring data through
the satellite network, rather than ground based cables.
"This is a logical extension of radio communication between
satellites," said Paul Stephens of DMC international imaging, a
subsidiary of Surrey Satellites in the UK.
Along with Cisco and US space agency Nasa, it put one of the first
routers in space onboard the UK-DMC satellite, part of the Disaster
Monitoring Constellation (DMC) used for observing the Earth for major
disasters.
The DMC router uses the latest IP networking standards to send
critical images to ground stations for use by rescue workers.
With IP becoming more prevalent for use in space, Nasa and internet
pioneer Vint Cerf have also investigated the possibility of using
internet technology across the solar system.
Although some work has been carried out on the necessary standards and
protocols, no definite schedule has been announced for this
interplanetary internet.
"Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nieveler.nospam@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:Xns9911D819E2641juergennieveler@nieveler.org. ..
> "AirRaid" <airraid.mach2.5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Iris is to the future of satellite-based communications what Arpanet
>> was to the creation of the internet in the 1960s," said Don Brown, of
>> Intelsat General, one of the companies who will build the platform.
>
> Uh... somebody may correct me, but one of the first extensions of the
> original 4-host Arpanet was trying to build a satelite link to the UK -
> and two-way Internet connections via Satellite are becoming cheap by
> now (around 50 Euros per month for 1Mb/128k) - so what exactly is NEWS
> about that?
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> "Eating uranium makes me feel funny", said Tom glowingly
Hmm. Yes, my first thought was this article is twenty years old.
> Hmm. Yes, my first thought was this article is twenty years old.
We need a comment from somebody who knows, but right away, I see the
difference is the fact that it will not just be a relay to an earth
backbone, but will BE a backbone or at least a node on the internet.
As I understand it now, the HughesNet satellites, for example, simply
act as ar elay from our dish to a dish at the Hughes Network
Operations Center. From there, it is routed onto the internet. No
matter where you are in the world, on Hughesnet, your packets enter
the internet in Germantown Maryland or Las Vegas Nevada. Even if you
are in Peru, checking out a website hosted in the sametown, or
chatting with you neighbor by VOIP (to the degree that it works).
Basically, the satellite acts as a very, very long extension of our
local network.
So, if it's a node on the internet and not just a relay, then it will
route a package more directly, not through a NOC. Something like
that ?
I'm guessing that this generally will cut the lag time and
considerably shorten the route to any given site over today's
satellite relays.
"The IRIS architecture allows direct IP routing over satellite,
eliminating the need for routing via a ground-based teleport,
thereby
dramatically increasing the efficiency and flexibility of the
satellite
communications link," said Don Brown, Vice President of Hosted
Payload
Programs for Intelsat General.
>From PCWorld:
Cyberspace meets outer space in plan to put a router in orbit to speed
satellite communications.
John Blau, IDG News Service
Thursday, April 12, 2007 08:00 AM PDT
The U.S. military plan to test an Internet router in space, in a
project that could also benefit civilian broadband satellite
communications.
Cisco Systems Inc. and Intelsat General Corp., a subsidiary of
Intelsat Ltd., are among the companies selected by the U.S. Department
of Defense for its Internet Routing In Space (IRIS) project, which
aims to deliver military communications through a satellite-based
router.
Potential nonmilitary benefits of the IRIS program include the ability
to route IP (Internet Protocol) traffic between satellites in space in
much the same way packets are moved on the ground, reducing delays,
saving on capacity and offering greater networking flexibility, Lloyd
Wood, space initiatives manager in the Global Defense, Space &
Security division of Cisco, said Thursday.
To send a message from one remote terminal to another via satellite
today requires the first terminal to send the data to the satellite,
from where it is bounced back to an earth station for routing. The
earth station retransmits it to the satellite on a different
frequency, selected depending on its destination, and the satellite
bounces it back to its destination. With the router in space, the
satellite can pick the channel used to send the message to its
destination. By eliminating the message's round trip to the earth
station, operators can increase satellite capacity and reduce
transmission times between remote terminals by using fewer hops and
fewer frequencies for each message.
For the IRIS program, satellite operator Intelsat will manage the
three-year project, with Cisco will provide IP networking software for
the on-board router.
After testing, the technology will be available for commercial use.
Although satellites have been passively relaying IP traffic since the
1970s, the use of an orbiting satellite as an active part of the
Internet is a more recent development, according to Wood.
Traditionally, communication signals that come up to a satellite in
either the C-band or the Ku-band, go down in the same band, he said.
They require separate transponders that don't communicate with each
other.
Internet routing technology being tested in the IRIS project will
enable this communication by "decoding what comes up in the C-band or
Ku-band and interconnecting the two," said Wood.
"You save on delays and capacity by not having to go back to the
ground," said Wood. "And once you have smarter satellites, you can
treat them as not completely separate but as part of your IP network
and manage them as you do your IP networking assets on the ground.
They become fully integrated with your terrestrial network, allowing
you to take advantage of existing management tools and also decrease
the number of ground stations."
The IRIS payload will support network services for voice, video and
data. The system is designed to support IP packet Layer 3 routing or
multicast distribution, which can be reconfigured on demand.
The Defense Information Systems Agency will have overall
responsibility for coordinating the use of IRIS technology among
government users and leveraging IRIS capability once the satellite is
in space.
The satellite is set for launch in the first quarter of 2009.
"seaweedsteve" <seaweedsteve@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176576479.176310.281230@n59g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> Newsbits gleaned:
>
> "The IRIS architecture allows direct IP routing over satellite,
> eliminating the need for routing via a ground-based teleport,
> thereby
> dramatically increasing the efficiency and flexibility of the
> satellite
> communications link," said Don Brown, Vice President of Hosted
> Payload
> Programs for Intelsat General.
With the exception of someone using a VSAT link somewhere out in the middle
of bugger all where the land lines don't run, what's the point?
Anyone using a VSAT link doesn't really care anyway, they need some sort of
router at their end to get onto the net anyway so they don't actually care
where the next router in the chain is and they're certainly not interested
in expensive satellite to satellite links. All they really want is to
ground their signal somewhere where there's a POTS fibre trunk.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
"seaweedsteve" <seaweedsteve@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176575259.473277.44970@w1g2000hsg.googlegrou ps.com...
>> Hmm. Yes, my first thought was this article is twenty years old.
>
>
> We need a comment from somebody who knows, but right away, I see the
> difference is the fact that it will not just be a relay to an earth
> backbone, but will BE a backbone or at least a node on the internet.
>
> As I understand it now, the HughesNet satellites, for example, simply
> act as ar elay from our dish to a dish at the Hughes Network
> Operations Center. From there, it is routed onto the internet. No
> matter where you are in the world, on Hughesnet, your packets enter
> the internet in Germantown Maryland or Las Vegas Nevada. Even if you
> are in Peru, checking out a website hosted in the sametown, or
> chatting with you neighbor by VOIP (to the degree that it works).
>
> Basically, the satellite acts as a very, very long extension of our
> local network.
>
> So, if it's a node on the internet and not just a relay, then it will
> route a package more directly, not through a NOC. Something like
> that ?
>
> I'm guessing that this generally will cut the lag time and
> considerably shorten the route to any given site over today's
> satellite relays.
Iridium already does satellie to satellite links.
As for the delay, that will still be there, as you have to get up and back
to the satellite, On VSATS in the field and my own satellite connection at
the house here in Alaska, I have seen delays up to 2 doing ping.
>
> Steve
>
>The Department of Defense's Iris project will put an internet router
>in space by the start of 2009.
Yawn.... NASA launched a Cisco router into orbit in Sept 2003.
<http://caia.swin.edu.au/talks/CAIA-TALK-060208A.pdf>
As I recall, it could only be tested for 10-15 minutes at a time
before power restrictions necessitated that it be shut down.
More:
<http://www.cisco.com/go/space>
Lots of up to date references and URL as to what's being planned and
suggested:
<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/cleo/>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLEO_(router)>
Whenever I read something like this, I ask myself "What problem are
they trying to solve"? The US military wants to fly a smart router to
reduce traffic between ground stations, possibly even eliminating the
number of ground stations required. That's an admirable goal that can
more economically be achieved by doing most of the routing on the
ground or working on protocol efficiency, but those projects don't get
headlines.
It's basically a good idea if there are multiple connections to the
satellite communications system. For the home satellite internet
users, that would mean that pinging another user would go directly
between users via the router in the sky. That reduces latency and
enables peer-to-peer applications such as VoIP and global illegal file
sharing. The problem is that the ISP never sees the peer-to-peer
traffic as it never goes down to the ISP's ground stations. That
means that the ISP can't easily do filtering, traffic management,
sniffing, and abuse mitigation. The router in the sky can send
reports down to the ground, and of course ACL lists can be used, but I
doubt if this particular router will have the horsepower to do this
for the entire continent. Maybe the next generation probably called
"ISP in the Sky".
>Although some work has been carried out on the necessary standards and
>protocols, no definite schedule has been announced for this
>interplanetary internet.
Yep. More research, justification, politics, bribes, deals, awards,
litigation, consortia, licensing, auctions, press releases and
technology are necessary.
>Net reaches out to final frontier
>
>Iris will allow troops to communicate over the net from remote regions
>
>A programme to kick-start the use of internet communications in space
>has been announced by the US government.
>
>The Department of Defense's Iris project will put an internet router
>in space by the start of 2009.
>
>It will allow voice, video and data communications for US troops using
>standards developed for the internet.
>
>Eventually Iris could extend the net into space, allowing data to flow
>directly between satellites, rather than sending it via ground
>stations.
>
>"Iris is to the future of satellite-based communications what Arpanet
>was to the creation of the internet in the 1960s," said Don Brown, of
>Intelsat General, one of the companies who will build the platform.
>
>Arpanet (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network), the predecessor
>of the internet, was developed by the United States Department of
>Defense.
>
>Remote access
>
>The Iris (Internet Router Protocol in Space) project has been given
>the go ahead after winning funding from the US Department of Defense,
>under its Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) programme.
>
>The programme aims to develop advanced concepts and put "innovative
>concepts into the hands of war fighters in the field."
>
>The Iris project is one of seven that has been given funding this
>year. Others include development of smart sensors and counter
>camouflage technology.
>
>
>Iris is a three year programme to develop a satellite platform and
>"space hardened router".
>
>A router is a piece of hardware that directs packets of information
>around a network.
>
>The specially designed equipment will be developed by network
>specialist Cisco while the geostationary satellite, IS-14, will be
>built by Intelsat.
>
>When launched in 2009 it will allow troops to communicate over the
>internet from the remotest regions from Europe Africa and the
>Americas.
>
>"Iris extends the internet into space, integrating satellite systems
>and the ground infrastructure for warfighters, first responders and
>others who need seamless and instant communications," said Bill
>Shernit, CEO of Intelsat general.
>
>After initial testing the satellite will be opened up for commercial
>use.
>
>Cyber space
>
>Launching Iris could also signal the beginning of the development of
>the internet in space.
>
>At the moment most satellites have to communicate with one another
>through ground stations or via radio signals to a relay satellite.
>
>
>Deploying routers on satellites would allow them to communicate
>directly with one another using common internet standards, known as
>internet protocol (IP).
>
>"The Iris architecture allows direct IP routing over satellite,
>eliminating the need for routing via a ground-based teleport," said Mr
>Brown.
>
>It also raises the possibility of routinely transferring data through
>the satellite network, rather than ground based cables.
>
>"This is a logical extension of radio communication between
>satellites," said Paul Stephens of DMC international imaging, a
>subsidiary of Surrey Satellites in the UK.
>
>Along with Cisco and US space agency Nasa, it put one of the first
>routers in space onboard the UK-DMC satellite, part of the Disaster
>Monitoring Constellation (DMC) used for observing the Earth for major
>disasters.
>
>The DMC router uses the latest IP networking standards to send
>critical images to ground stations for use by rescue workers.
>
>With IP becoming more prevalent for use in space, Nasa and internet
>pioneer Vint Cerf have also investigated the possibility of using
>internet technology across the solar system.
>
>Although some work has been carried out on the necessary standards and
>protocols, no definite schedule has been announced for this
>interplanetary internet.
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6551807.stm
>
>
>
Great, Spam email from space.........
> As for the delay, that will still be there, as you have to get up and back
> to the satellite, On VSATS in the field and my own satellite connection at
> the house here in Alaska, I have seen delays up to 2 doing ping.
If done properly routing in the satellite will half the delay.
Previous systems did it one of two ways.
1. Subscribe A to satellite and the satellite broadcast the data to
everyone.
2. Or Subscriber A to satellite, satellite forwards data to a military
base somewhere. The routing computer at the military base decides
which one of its satellites to send the data to. Base sends data
to satellite and the satellite forwards data to Subscriber B.
This requires four 36,000 mile hops and 4 radio frequencies.
The new satellite appears to contain its own routing computer.
New way. Subscriber A to satellite. Satellite examines the Call
Request and looks in its data base for Subscriber B. If B is
within the foot print then the satellite calls Subscriber B.
This requires two 36,000 mile hops and 2 radio frequencies.
The is only a small advantage in having tactical routers but big
advantages in strategic and logistics routers. The front line
Lieutenant can send an email back to the USA.
"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:rdCdnd6hEL6jWb_bnZ2dnUVZ8tOmnZ2d@bt.com...
> Dana wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> As for the delay, that will still be there, as you have to get up and
>> back to the satellite, On VSATS in the field and my own satellite
>> connection at the house here in Alaska, I have seen delays up to 2 doing
>> ping.
>
> If done properly routing in the satellite will half the delay.
>
> Previous systems did it one of two ways.
>
> 1. Subscribe A to satellite and the satellite broadcast the data to
> everyone.
> 2. Or Subscriber A to satellite, satellite forwards data to a military
> base somewhere. The routing computer at the military base decides
> which one of its satellites to send the data to. Base sends data
> to satellite and the satellite forwards data to Subscriber B.
> This requires four 36,000 mile hops and 4 radio frequencies.
>
> The new satellite appears to contain its own routing computer.
> New way. Subscriber A to satellite. Satellite examines the Call
> Request and looks in its data base for Subscriber B. If B is
> within the foot print then the satellite calls Subscriber B.
> This requires two 36,000 mile hops and 2 radio frequencies.
>
> The is only a small advantage in having tactical routers but big
> advantages in strategic and logistics routers. The front line
> Lieutenant can send an email back to the USA.
They are doing that with VSATS, and have been for years.
Dana wrote:
> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:rdCdnd6hEL6jWb_bnZ2dnUVZ8tOmnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Dana wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> As for the delay, that will still be there, as you have to get up and
>>> back to the satellite, On VSATS in the field and my own satellite
>>> connection at the house here in Alaska, I have seen delays up to 2 doing
>>> ping.
>> If done properly routing in the satellite will half the delay.
>>
>> Previous systems did it one of two ways.
>>
>> 1. Subscribe A to satellite and the satellite broadcast the data to
>> everyone.
>> 2. Or Subscriber A to satellite, satellite forwards data to a military
>> base somewhere. The routing computer at the military base decides
>> which one of its satellites to send the data to. Base sends data
>> to satellite and the satellite forwards data to Subscriber B.
>> This requires four 36,000 mile hops and 4 radio frequencies.
>>
>> The new satellite appears to contain its own routing computer.
>> New way. Subscriber A to satellite. Satellite examines the Call
>> Request and looks in its data base for Subscriber B. If B is
>> within the foot print then the satellite calls Subscriber B.
>> This requires two 36,000 mile hops and 2 radio frequencies.
>>
>> The is only a small advantage in having tactical routers but big
>> advantages in strategic and logistics routers. The front line
>> Lieutenant can send an email back to the USA.
>
> They are doing that with VSATS, and have been for years.
>
>> Andrew Swallow
>
>
*I* *AM*
What ever happened to Bush's billions of dollars
*Missile Defense Shield* money?
I Am The One!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are none so blind as those who do not want to see,
and close their feeble mind tighter to see even less.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"seaweedsteve" <seaweedsteve@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1176575259.473277.44970@w1g2000hsg.googlegrou ps.com:
>> Hmm. Yes, my first thought was this article is twenty years old.
>
>
> We need a comment from somebody who knows, but right away, I see the
> difference is the fact that it will not just be a relay to an earth
> backbone, but will BE a backbone or at least a node on the internet.
>
> As I understand it now, the HughesNet satellites, for example, simply
> act as ar elay from our dish to a dish at the Hughes Network
> Operations Center. From there, it is routed onto the internet. No
> matter where you are in the world, on Hughesnet, your packets enter
> the internet in Germantown Maryland or Las Vegas Nevada. Even if you
> are in Peru, checking out a website hosted in the sametown, or
> chatting with you neighbor by VOIP (to the degree that it works).
>
> Basically, the satellite acts as a very, very long extension of our
> local network.
>
> So, if it's a node on the internet and not just a relay, then it will
> route a package more directly, not through a NOC. Something like
> that ?
>
> I'm guessing that this generally will cut the lag time and
> considerably shorten the route to any given site over today's
> satellite relays.
>
> Steve
>
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>> Dana wrote:
>>
>>> As for the delay, that will still be there, as you have to get up and
>>> back to the satellite, On VSATS in the field and my own satellite
>>> connection at the house here in Alaska, I have seen delays up to 2 doing
>>> ping.
>>
>> If done properly routing in the satellite will half the delay.
>>
>> Previous systems did it one of two ways.
>>
>> 1. Subscribe A to satellite and the satellite broadcast the data to
>> everyone.
>> 2. Or Subscriber A to satellite, satellite forwards data to a military
>> base somewhere. The routing computer at the military base decides
>> which one of its satellites to send the data to. Base sends data
>> to satellite and the satellite forwards data to Subscriber B.
>> This requires four 36,000 mile hops and 4 radio frequencies.
>>
>> The new satellite appears to contain its own routing computer.
>> New way. Subscriber A to satellite. Satellite examines the Call
>> Request and looks in its data base for Subscriber B. If B is
>> within the foot print then the satellite calls Subscriber B.
>> This requires two 36,000 mile hops and 2 radio frequencies.
>>
This is the IP equivalent of DAMA (Demand Access Multiple
Assignment) for switched circuit networking (the PSTN).
Subscriber A now is talking to a ground based router via one
satellite link, and Subscriber B is talking to the same ground
based router via a different satellite link. Two hops to the
satellite are used for A and B to communicate. Each hop adds
approximately 400-500ms of latency, even though A and B could
literally be in adjacent buildings.
The "new" idea is to have a router in the satellite, there will
be only one hop, as each subscriber still has a link to the
satellite, but no second link to a ground station is required
(for the data path, at least, but I would expect that most of
the router's smarts will be ground based, and only the switching
fabric will be in the satellite).
That has practical application in Alaska, just the same as DAMA
used for voice switched networking for the PSTN. Using DAMA
reduces the use of very expensive satellite bandwidth almost
half, and provides the customer with a significantly higher
quality service.
Consider the problems that state agencies, schools, and health
care organizations all have with existing private networking.
For example, one network based in Bethel (the Yukon/Kuskokwim
Delta region of southwestern Alaska) had to put their main
network routing center in Seattle just because it would have
been a killer to double hop all traffic that did connect
outside, whereas there is much less traffic between the
villages, so village-to-village traffic had to tolerate the
higher latency.
With a router in the satellite, they would be able to move the
main operation to their building in Bethel and have much better
administrative control and at the same time provide better
technical service to their end users in each village.
>> The is only a small advantage in having tactical routers but big
>> advantages in strategic and logistics routers. The front line
>> Lieutenant can send an email back to the USA.
But that is *not* significant for email! That's a store and
forward system that might have hours of latency! But video
conferencing, or even just voice calls/conferencing, would be
significantly better with lower latency. Schools and health
care providers in particular would find it useful.
Of course the military would also be able to deploy a much more
effective remote controlled tactical battle team, with the
remote control being in the field and mobile. With low latency
between each user the Command Post could actually be dispersed,
with potentially each user participating.
>They are doing that with VSATS, and have been for years.
Where? I thought all of them were using common base to
subscriber links and multiple subscriber to base links. That
requires a ground based router, and communications between any
two satellite subscribers requires a double hop.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>Whenever I read something like this, I ask myself "What problem are
>they trying to solve"? The US military wants to fly a smart router to
>reduce traffic between ground stations, possibly even eliminating the
>number of ground stations required. That's an admirable goal that can
>more economically be achieved by doing most of the routing on the
>ground or working on protocol efficiency, but those projects don't get
>headlines.
However, satellite bandwidth is expensive, and this would
increase efficiency by nearly two times. Plus provide better
service (lower latency, which is significant for both voice and
video conferencing).
>It's basically a good idea if there are multiple connections to the
>satellite communications system.
For example... multi-unit combat teams.
>For the home satellite internet
>users, that would mean that pinging another user would go directly
>between users via the router in the sky. That reduces latency and
>enables peer-to-peer applications such as VoIP and global illegal file
>sharing.
Okay, you would benefit! That's good Jeff. But global legal
file sharing would be improved to, so I would benefit also,
which *is* important... ;-)
>The problem is that the ISP never sees the peer-to-peer
>traffic as it never goes down to the ISP's ground stations. That
>means that the ISP can't easily do filtering, traffic management,
>sniffing, and abuse mitigation.
Why not? It's all done in the router. Granted that it will be
more expensive because power on board a satellite is limited,
but I suspect they've got this down to some fairly low power
technology by now.
>The router in the sky can send
>reports down to the ground, and of course ACL lists can be used, but I
>doubt if this particular router will have the horsepower to do this
>for the entire continent. Maybe the next generation probably called
>"ISP in the Sky".
Well, there are problems. One is that NSA will have to buy a
whole transponder on each satellite just to handle the snooping.
Congress can fund that though... (now they steal bandwidth on
virtually every satellite, but they don't need to access the
internals).
>>Although some work has been carried out on the necessary standards and
>>protocols, no definite schedule has been announced for this
>>interplanetary internet.
>
>Yep. More research, justification, politics, bribes, deals, awards,
>litigation, consortia, licensing, auctions, press releases and
>technology are necessary.
Hello again. It's been a long time since we've locked horns.
>However, satellite bandwidth is expensive, and this would
>increase efficiency by nearly two times. Plus provide better
>service (lower latency, which is significant for both voice and
>video conferencing).
Sure. You forgot all those wonderful peer to peer applications that I
mentioned later. Personally, I think it's a great idea. I just don't
see how it's going to be built and implimented. For example, the
traffic going up and down is not convenient ethernet packets that a
router can easily digest. It's a compressed, paralleled, and possibly
encrypted 6MHz wide 256QAM(?) RF stream. In order for a Cisco router
to decide where to send this or that packet, the satellite would need
to demodulate the whole mess, extract the packets, inspect the headers
(and contents), reassemble the extracted packets, re-compress, and
re-modulate the RF signal, before sending it on its way. I have no
doubt that it can be done, but are the alleged benifits worth the
effort? For consumer satellite internet, probably not. For military,
cost is no object.
>Okay, you would benefit! That's good Jeff. But global legal
>file sharing would be improved to, so I would benefit also,
>which *is* important... ;-)
Nice try. For what it's worth, I barely do any illegal file sharing.
I'm too busy doing other illegal things. I will confess to having
downloaded some cracked commercial software so I could play with it,
and one DVD image, which incidentally was garbage and took 2 days to
download. I don't think I would benifit very much.
Incidentally, if the benifits of the latency reduction were so great,
what happened to all the "terrestial satellite" ideas, such as
tethered aerostat balloons and airplanes flying donuts?
>>The problem is that the ISP never sees the peer-to-peer
>>traffic as it never goes down to the ISP's ground stations. That
>>means that the ISP can't easily do filtering, traffic management,
>>sniffing, and abuse mitigation.
>
>Why not? It's all done in the router. Granted that it will be
>more expensive because power on board a satellite is limited,
>but I suspect they've got this down to some fairly low power
>technology by now.
Perhaps I have a limited imagination, but I'm visualizing all the
features and functions of a Cisco router run by remote control over
the same inband channel used by the subscribers. That means Netflow
and SNMP as implimented with Open View or some other network
management program. To avoid having this become the "bottleneck in
the sky", constant monitoring and traffic shaping will probably be
required. I just can't visualize how it's going to be done unless
they also install the network management workstation inside the bird
and run it by remote control.
I agree on the fairly low power technology in routers. That's been a
design goal for many years as data centers are doing battle with the
electric bill and cooling. Seen any ISP quality Cisco routers that
are battery operated?
>Well, there are problems. One is that NSA will have to buy a
>whole transponder on each satellite just to handle the snooping.
Yep. Not just NSA, but whomever operates the system probably wants to
do some snooping. With all the traffic going directly between users,
and NOT going through the ground station, snooping is almost
impossible. However, NSA has (my) money, so dedicating a management
channel for selective sniffing, err.... quality monitoring, would not
be impossible.
Incidentally, my reading of the tests performed on the existing CLEO
test system point to IPv6, yet another layer of complexity.
>>Yep. More research, justification, politics, bribes, deals, awards,
>>litigation, consortia, licensing, auctions, press releases and
>>technology are necessary.
My friends say they aren't getting enough, so you aren't going to get
any. The problem is that this router in the sky would normally be a
fairly quiet application of existing technology and deployed without
fanfare. However, something different is happening this time, which
seems to be turning it into press release fodder. I'm suspicious
enough to suspect that there's something else going on here.
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87abx8qpo9.fld@barrow.com...
> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> >Whenever I read something like this, I ask myself "What problem are
> >they trying to solve"? The US military wants to fly a smart router to
> >reduce traffic between ground stations, possibly even eliminating the
> >number of ground stations required. That's an admirable goal that can
> >more economically be achieved by doing most of the routing on the
> >ground or working on protocol efficiency, but those projects don't get
> >headlines.
>
> However, satellite bandwidth is expensive, and this would
> increase efficiency by nearly two times. Plus provide better
> service (lower latency, which is significant for both voice and
> video conferencing).
>
> >It's basically a good idea if there are multiple connections to the
> >satellite communications system.
>
> For example... multi-unit combat teams.
>
> >For the home satellite internet
> >users, that would mean that pinging another user would go directly
> >between users via the router in the sky. That reduces latency and
> >enables peer-to-peer applications such as VoIP and global illegal file
> >sharing.
>
> Okay, you would benefit! That's good Jeff. But global legal
> file sharing would be improved to, so I would benefit also,
> which *is* important... ;-)
er - no.
you only improve efficiency if both users are on the same satellite, and
neither are the ground station (which is probably true for military users on
the same service, but not for general home users).
much more likely general case is Internet, with 1 user via the satellite,
and 1 either on a terrestrial network, or maybe another ISP and / or
satellite.
So if the ground station is reasonably close to the terrestrial network (ie
1000's of Km, since the satellite paths are so long) - no real gain in
efficiency at all for general Internet use.
The other assumption here is that the speed of light delay causes most of
the latency - channel contention and queuing seem to add up to a lot more in
practice....
So - corporate network? a lot of the big ones are data centre to branch
networks - nearly all the data flows via a couple of sites with big server
farms. No real gain there either.
and most corporate networks only use satellite where they have to. one i
worked with had 17k sites - 350 on satellite where we didnt have any
choice.....
Finally - scale. Dont forget the bandwidth down from the satellite on 1 or
several beams has to carry all downward packets - and a few high speed
microwave links are not going to compare to the 10s of 10G fibre interfaces
a real backbone router might connect to.
>
> >The problem is that the ISP never sees the peer-to-peer
> >traffic as it never goes down to the ISP's ground stations. That
> >means that the ISP can't easily do filtering, traffic management,
> >sniffing, and abuse mitigation.
>
> Why not? It's all done in the router. Granted that it will be
> more expensive because power on board a satellite is limited,
> but I suspect they've got this down to some fairly low power
> technology by now.
>
> >The router in the sky can send
> >reports down to the ground, and of course ACL lists can be used, but I
> >doubt if this particular router will have the horsepower to do this
> >for the entire continent. Maybe the next generation probably called
> >"ISP in the Sky".
>
> Well, there are problems. One is that NSA will have to buy a
> whole transponder on each satellite just to handle the snooping.
> Congress can fund that though... (now they steal bandwidth on
> virtually every satellite, but they don't need to access the
> internals).
Why bother? If the satellite has the "keys" to the encrypted traffic, then
the ground station can get them as well. Once you have the keys - well the
downlinks are microwave transponders, so pointing accuracy is not exactly a
laser spot size - more like a country...... just listen in with a big dish.
>
> >>Although some work has been carried out on the necessary standards and
> >>protocols, no definite schedule has been announced for this
> >>interplanetary internet.
> >
> >Yep. More research, justification, politics, bribes, deals, awards,
> >litigation, consortia, licensing, auctions, press releases and
> >technology are necessary.
>
> Yeah, that's *wrong* (because *my* friends aren't getting enough).
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
--
Regards
>
> Incidentally, if the benefits of the latency reduction were so great,
> what happened to all the "terrestrial satellite" ideas, such as
> tethered aerostat balloons and airplanes flying donuts?
>
I can chime in on this ; Yes, the benefits of latency reduction would
be great! Whether this "space router" deal will offer any to typical
users appears questionable, but many satellite subscribers desperately
want latency reduction. That's the weakest aspect of VSAT. If they
could cut down the lag, VOIP could actually work, right? And where
it's most needed, out in the boonies where there is no phone.
I don't know why lower altitude solutions have not been successfully
developed but I'll sign up when they do!
"seaweedsteve" <seaweedsteve@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176786156.951014.9290@b75g2000hsg.googlegrou ps.com...
> >
>> Incidentally, if the benefits of the latency reduction were so great,
>> what happened to all the "terrestrial satellite" ideas, such as
>> tethered aerostat balloons and airplanes flying donuts?
>>
>
> I can chime in on this ; Yes, the benefits of latency reduction would
> be great! Whether this "space router" deal will offer any to typical
> users appears questionable, but many satellite subscribers desperately
> want latency reduction. That's the weakest aspect of VSAT. If they
> could cut down the lag, VOIP could actually work, right? And where
> it's most needed, out in the boonies where there is no phone.
VoIP does work on VSAT just like it works on any form of satellite.
You just have to learn to live with the lag.
I get the distinct impression that the people who pay the big money aren't
that unhappy...
If you're in a trench with bombs going off and you MUST communicate then the
lag is within acceptable limits, if you want a chat with auntie Joyce about
her meat-loaf recipe then it may not be.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
"stephen" <stephen_hope@xyzworld.com> wrote:
>> Okay, you would benefit! That's good Jeff. But global legal
>> file sharing would be improved to, so I would benefit also,
>> which *is* important... ;-)
>
>er - no.
>
>you only improve efficiency if both users are on the same satellite, and
Which could easily be the typical case. For example with any
given satellite covering Alaska, and that would be true in many
areas of the world.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that this technology is being
developed to provide links between major cities in the US.
>neither are the ground station (which is probably true for military users on
>the same service, but not for general home users).
Neither the military (with mobile combat teams) nor the average
potential user around the world are connected via high capacity
fiber to ground stations. Perhaps you live where that is true,
but the whole point of developing this type of technology is to
provide better service to users who do not have access via high
capacity fiber optics.
>much more likely general case is Internet, with 1 user via the satellite,
>and 1 either on a terrestrial network, or maybe another ISP and / or
>satellite.
That is the general case now. But it does not describe most of
the world, and bringing better Internet service to the rest of
the world is the intent.
>So if the ground station is reasonably close to the terrestrial network (ie
>1000's of Km, since the satellite paths are so long) - no real gain in
>efficiency at all for general Internet use.
>
>The other assumption here is that the speed of light delay causes most of
>the latency - channel contention and queuing seem to add up to a lot more in
>practice....
And that is in fact the case. The actually propagation delay is
less than 500 ms for a round trip. A typical minimum ping time
is about 550ms. The 100ms or so difference, minimum, is latency
in various routers and other transmission systems. For an end
user like myself, typical minimum ping times run just over 600ms
over a satellite link.
>So - corporate network? a lot of the big ones are data centre to branch
>networks - nearly all the data flows via a couple of sites with big server
>farms. No real gain there either.
That is because with existing technology it makes little sense
to design any other style of network. The latency between leaf
nodes is too high.
>and most corporate networks only use satellite where they have to. one i
>worked with had 17k sites - 350 on satellite where we didnt have any
>choice.....
Exactly; and of course in parts of the world the majority of all
telecommunications is satellite based.
>Finally - scale. Dont forget the bandwidth down from the satellite on 1 or
>several beams has to carry all downward packets - and a few high speed
>microwave links are not going to compare to the 10s of 10G fibre interfaces
>a real backbone router might connect to.
I don't see your point. First, for communications to my area it
makes no difference at all what capacity exists for fiber. We
have the town literally webbed with fiber, but there is no fiber
interconnectivity to anywhere else, and probably will not be for
decades to come. It is not an uncommon situation, and in fact
describes much of the world.
In regard to satellite downlinks, there is some very interesting
potential there, which I have no details about and no mention
has been made in this discussion. Is the router limited to
traffic within one transponder, or does it have individual
connectivity to each transponder. Regardless of what the
initial technology will be, eventually satellites will have
routers that interconnect each transponder. And the number of
transponders is likely to be increased too, possibly with
narrower bandwidth for each. Imagine a satellite with a
hundreds of small foot print transponders!
The possibilities get very interesting.
>> Well, there are problems. One is that NSA will have to buy a
>> whole transponder on each satellite just to handle the snooping.
>> Congress can fund that though... (now they steal bandwidth on
>> virtually every satellite, but they don't need to access the
>> internals).
>
>Why bother? If the satellite has the "keys" to the encrypted traffic, then
>the ground station can get them as well. Once you have the keys - well the
>downlinks are microwave transponders, so pointing accuracy is not exactly a
>laser spot size - more like a country...... just listen in with a big dish.
That of course requires many listening stations, with at least
one within the footprint of each transponder (which might be
mobile in future satellites). Much easier to simply require
that each satellite have a transponder dedicated to the spooks,
who can then connect, in the satellite, to any data stream they
wish.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) hath wroth:
>
>Hello again. It's been a long time since we've locked horns.
Locked horns? We're both too old to have anything left but
worn stubs where majestic antlers once grew...
>>However, satellite bandwidth is expensive, and this would
>>increase efficiency by nearly two times. Plus provide better
>>service (lower latency, which is significant for both voice and
>>video conferencing).
>
>Sure. You forgot all those wonderful peer to peer applications that I
>mentioned later. Personally, I think it's a great idea. I just don't
>see how it's going to be built and implimented. For example, the
>traffic going up and down is not convenient ethernet packets that a
>router can easily digest. It's a compressed, paralleled, and possibly
>encrypted 6MHz wide 256QAM(?) RF stream.
>
>In order for a Cisco router
>to decide where to send this or that packet, the satellite would need
>to demodulate the whole mess, extract the packets, inspect the headers
>(and contents), reassemble the extracted packets, re-compress, and
>re-modulate the RF signal, before sending it on its way. I have no
I don't know that all readers have the background to understand
your point, so I'm going to expand on it with some detail.
Current satellites are mostly of the "bent pipe" design. There
is a receive antenna which picks up a signal from the ground
station (6GHz for C band uplink). The signal is hetrodyned to
the downlink frequency (4GHz for C band downlink) and amplified
before being sent to the transmit antenna. That is it. It is a
very simple, relatively small, radio equipment package.
Jeff is pointing out that instead of the currently simple radio
and electronics, it is not just a router that must be added to
the satellite, but virtually the entire set of electronics that
now exists only at the ground station. The received signal must
be sent to a downconverter that puts each transponder into a
separate 70Mhz Intermediate Frequency channel, and then it has
to be demodulated/decoded to the various digital bit streams
(one $30,000 modem per bit stream in a ground station) to have
access to each individual packet in order to route it to a
different destination than the packet before or after it. This
is a seriously larger amount of equipment than just adding a
little old Cisco router! It would be several times as much
equipment as current systems use.
Using current technology something like that is going to be very
crude and have few capabilities. But in 20 years it will be
doing things we can barely imagine right now. Hence most of the
discussion about what it can do, is not what the first try will
produce, but what it will eventually lead to.
>doubt that it can be done, but are the alleged benifits worth the
>effort? For consumer satellite internet, probably not. For military,
>cost is no object.
I think that once the critical mass is reached, and the price is
low enough that even a few consumers can afford it, it will
instantly become a very significant service, the price will
drop, and it will become ubiquitous.
The entire US may be layered with fiber optic cable, but the
rest of the world is not.
>>Okay, you would benefit! That's good Jeff. But global legal
>>file sharing would be improved to, so I would benefit also,
>>which *is* important... ;-)
>
>Nice try. For what it's worth, I barely do any illegal file sharing.
>I'm too busy doing other illegal things.
That's a good point. Why bother with something that only
produces a stupid song or two. There's real money to be made
out there! (Especially for faithful Republicans; but maybe we
can change that when Hillary is the CinC.)
>I will confess to having
>downloaded some cracked commercial software so I could play with it,
>and one DVD image, which incidentally was garbage and took 2 days to
>download. I don't think I would benifit very much.
>
>Incidentally, if the benifits of the latency reduction were so great,
>what happened to all the "terrestial satellite" ideas, such as
>tethered aerostat balloons and airplanes flying donuts?
Poof... History.
>>>The problem is that the ISP never sees the peer-to-peer
>>>traffic as it never goes down to the ISP's ground stations. That
>>>means that the ISP can't easily do filtering, traffic management,
>>>sniffing, and abuse mitigation.
>>
>>Why not? It's all done in the router. Granted that it will be
>>more expensive because power on board a satellite is limited,
>>but I suspect they've got this down to some fairly low power
>>technology by now.
>
>Perhaps I have a limited imagination, but I'm visualizing all the
>features and functions of a Cisco router run by remote control over
>the same inband channel used by the subscribers. That means Netflow
>and SNMP as implimented with Open View or some other network
>management program. To avoid having this become the "bottleneck in
>the sky", constant monitoring and traffic shaping will probably be
>required. I just can't visualize how it's going to be done unless
>they also install the network management workstation inside the bird
>and run it by remote control.
I think most of the potential for this is predicated on having a
significant increase in the onboard power available. If they
have it, all sorts of things are possible. Without it, the
beast is going to be very clunky and primitive.
Of course reduced power consumption is equally significant.
>I agree on the fairly low power technology in routers. That's been a
>design goal for many years as data centers are doing battle with the
>electric bill and cooling. Seen any ISP quality Cisco routers that
>are battery operated?
>
>>Well, there are problems. One is that NSA will have to buy a
>>whole transponder on each satellite just to handle the snooping.
>
>Yep. Not just NSA, but whomever operates the system probably wants to
>do some snooping. With all the traffic going directly between users,
>and NOT going through the ground station, snooping is almost
>impossible. However, NSA has (my) money, so dedicating a management
>channel for selective sniffing, err.... quality monitoring, would not
>be impossible.
Hmmm... I suspect that is already a virtual legal requirement.
>Incidentally, my reading of the tests performed on the existing CLEO
>test system point to IPv6, yet another layer of complexity.
>
>>>Yep. More research, justification, politics, bribes, deals, awards,
>>>litigation, consortia, licensing, auctions, press releases and
>>>technology are necessary.
>
>>Yeah, that's *wrong* (because *my* friends aren't getting enough).
>
>My friends say they aren't getting enough, so you aren't going to get
>any.
See... those are *greedy* bastards. Mine friends are *needy* bastards.
(Isn't that what everyone who lobbies Congress says?)
I've spent my whole life wondering why I never seem to get to the
good stuff before the greedy bastards do...
>The problem is that this router in the sky would normally be a
>fairly quiet application of existing technology and deployed without
>fanfare. However, something different is happening this time, which
>seems to be turning it into press release fodder. I'm suspicious
>enough to suspect that there's something else going on here.
A really good point. And I've seen nothing that indicates why
they've made a big deal out of it.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
seaweedsteve wrote:
> I don't know why lower altitude solutions have not been successfully
> developed but I'll sign up when they do!
Lower orbits would not be geosynchronous and require constant re-aiming of
a dish antenna or a "just point up to the sky" low gain antenna like the
Lindenblad http://www.amsat.org/amsat/articles/w6shp/lindy.html and then it
would be only a 20 minute or so communications link as the bird travels
from horizon to horizon.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:22:13 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
wrote in <9S3Vh.5111$3P3.117@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>:
>seaweedsteve wrote:
>> I don't know why lower altitude solutions have not been successfully
>> developed but I'll sign up when they do!
>
>Lower orbits would not be geosynchronous and require constant re-aiming of
>a dish antenna or a "just point up to the sky" low gain antenna like the
>Lindenblad http://www.amsat.org/amsat/articles/w6shp/lindy.html and then it
>would be only a 20 minute or so communications link as the bird travels
>from horizon to horizon.
LEO (low Earth orbit) can work for longer periods if there is a complete
constellation of birds and a mechanism for seamless handoff between
birds.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
>>In order for a Cisco router
>>to decide where to send this or that packet, the satellite would need
>>to demodulate the whole mess, extract the packets, inspect the headers
>>(and contents), reassemble the extracted packets, re-compress, and
>>re-modulate the RF signal, before sending it on its way. I have no
>
>I don't know that all readers have the background to understand
>your point, so I'm going to expand on it with some detail.
>
>Current satellites are mostly of the "bent pipe" design. There
>is a receive antenna which picks up a signal from the ground
>station (6GHz for C band uplink). The signal is hetrodyned to
>the downlink frequency (4GHz for C band downlink) and amplified
>before being sent to the transmit antenna. That is it. It is a
>very simple, relatively small, radio equipment package.
Iridium is far more sophisticated than that, including inter-satellite
links, and direct mobile to mobile communications without going through
a terrestrial base station.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_%28satellite%29>
>>doubt that it can be done, but are the alleged benifits worth the
>>effort? For consumer satellite internet, probably not. For military,
>>cost is no object.
>
>I think that once the critical mass is reached, and the price is
>low enough that even a few consumers can afford it, it will
>instantly become a very significant service, the price will
>drop, and it will become ubiquitous.
That's what they said about Iridium and other LEO satellite dreams, but
so far it's turned out not to be true. Technology continues to advance,
but space is a very difficult environment.
>>Incidentally, if the benifits of the latency reduction were so great,
>>what happened to all the "terrestial satellite" ideas, such as
>>tethered aerostat balloons and airplanes flying donuts?
>
>Poof... History.
Poof... Reality. Lots of things sound interesting on paper only to
prove to be wildly impractical in the real world.
>>The problem is that this router in the sky would normally be a
>>fairly quiet application of existing technology and deployed without
>>fanfare. However, something different is happening this time, which
>>seems to be turning it into press release fodder. I'm suspicious
>>enough to suspect that there's something else going on here.
>
>A really good point. And I've seen nothing that indicates why
>they've made a big deal out of it.
This kind of fanfare is usually a sign that someone is looking for
buckets of money from naive suckers ... er ... "investors".
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:36:08 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in <87odlnp713.fld@barrow.com>:
>In regard to satellite downlinks, there is some very interesting
>potential there, which I have no details about and no mention
>has been made in this discussion. Is the router limited to
>traffic within one transponder, or does it have individual
>connectivity to each transponder. Regardless of what the
>initial technology will be, eventually satellites will have
>routers that interconnect each transponder. And the number of
>transponders is likely to be increased too, possibly with
>narrower bandwidth for each. Imagine a satellite with a
>hundreds of small foot print transponders!
Each Iridium bird has 48 spot beams for cellular downlinks. Many more
than that might hit the limit of diminishing returns (with existing
technology at least).
>That of course requires many listening stations, with at least
>one within the footprint of each transponder (which might be
>mobile in future satellites). Much easier to simply require
>that each satellite have a transponder dedicated to the spooks,
>who can then connect, in the satellite, to any data stream they
>wish.
The spooks want to monitor _all_ the data streams continuously.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:13:11 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>wrote in <87k5wbp5bc.fld@barrow.com>:
>
>>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>>In order for a Cisco router
>>>to decide where to send this or that packet, the satellite would need
>>>to demodulate the whole mess, extract the packets, inspect the headers
>>>(and contents), reassemble the extracted packets, re-compress, and
>>>re-modulate the RF signal, before sending it on its way. I have no
>>
>>I don't know that all readers have the background to understand
>>your point, so I'm going to expand on it with some detail.
>>
>>Current satellites are mostly of the "bent pipe" design. There
>>is a receive antenna which picks up a signal from the ground
>>station (6GHz for C band uplink). The signal is hetrodyned to
>>the downlink frequency (4GHz for C band downlink) and amplified
>>before being sent to the transmit antenna. That is it. It is a
>>very simple, relatively small, radio equipment package.
>
>Iridium is far more sophisticated than that, including inter-satellite
>links, and direct mobile to mobile communications without going through
>a terrestrial base station.
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_%28satellite%29>
Sure. I described "most", but not all. Iridium is not
representative of typical systems. But it doesn't really
represent an IP router in the sky either.
Iridium is a (low density) circuit switched system, so even it
doesn't get near the complexity required for IP routing. They
use digital channels, and apparently they can now get as much as
28.8Kbps on a digital link (according to th wikipedia article,
but last I knew it was more like 2400 bps).
However did you see where the URL cited says the latency runs
1500ms. That is as bad as a double hop over a typical C band
satellite system.
Iridium is interesting, and in some ways points to directions
that a packet switched system could go just as much as the
bent pipe configuration points to other potentials.
>>>doubt that it can be done, but are the alleged benifits worth the
>>>effort? For consumer satellite internet, probably not. For military,
>>>cost is no object.
>>
>>I think that once the critical mass is reached, and the price is
>>low enough that even a few consumers can afford it, it will
>>instantly become a very significant service, the price will
>>drop, and it will become ubiquitous.
>
>That's what they said about Iridium and other LEO satellite dreams, but
>so far it's turned out not to be true. Technology continues to advance,
>but space is a very difficult environment.
Iridium also suffered from poor management, and yet today it is
a viable service despite the extreme limitations and having
positioned itself originally as competition for cell phone
service (a huge mistake).
>>>Incidentally, if the benifits of the latency reduction were so great,
>>>what happened to all the "terrestial satellite" ideas, such as
>>>tethered aerostat balloons and airplanes flying donuts?
>>
>>Poof... History.
>
>Poof... Reality. Lots of things sound interesting on paper only to
>prove to be wildly impractical in the real world.
Exactly. That is why they go poof and become history instead of
reality.
>>>The problem is that this router in the sky would normally be a
>>>fairly quiet application of existing technology and deployed without
>>>fanfare. However, something different is happening this time, which
>>>seems to be turning it into press release fodder. I'm suspicious
>>>enough to suspect that there's something else going on here.
>>
>>A really good point. And I've seen nothing that indicates why
>>they've made a big deal out of it.
>
>This kind of fanfare is usually a sign that someone is looking for
>buckets of money from naive suckers ... er ... "investors".
One just never knows though... I've been watching (physically,
not financially, as they have a tracking station here) one of
the spy in the sky satellite outfits for nearly a decade. This
outfit rounded up something like half a billion dollars in
investor money on what certainly seemed like a bright idea with
a very flimsy chance of success, mostly because of the huge sums
of money and the high risk that any problem along the way would
kill them.
Ha! They had every problem imaginable. Their satellite launch
went bad and it landed in the Indian Ocean. Earth stations
(using PC's with Windows NT3.51 no less) sat idle with
everything turned off for years), they were right at the bottom
of the barrel when they managed one last gasp (the organizer of
this company is an extremely talented organizer), to launch an
older, off the shelf, satellite with less sophisticated
technology. At that point the investors were ready, I
understood, to tear them apart for whatever they could get, and
it would require an unbelievable miracle to pull them out.
So Bush invaded Iraq shortly after their satellite was
functional, and I guess their biggest problem since then is
hiring enough bean counters to keep track of the beans.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:54:43 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in <87bqhnoxu4.fld@barrow.com>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>That's what they said about Iridium and other LEO satellite dreams, but
>>so far it's turned out not to be true. Technology continues to advance,
>>but space is a very difficult environment.
>
>Iridium also suffered from poor management, and yet today it is
>a viable service despite the extreme limitations and having
>positioned itself originally as competition for cell phone
>service (a huge mistake).
Iridium is only viable because the billions of dollars needed to design
and build the system were almost entirely written off. It's a "free"
system except for operation and maintenance costs, and even so is still
too clumsy and expensive to find more than a niche market. All other
such LEO ventures have failed completely.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
PENTAGON TO PUT INTERNET ROUTER -- IN SPACE 
Linear Mode
