In MsgID on Thu, 19 Jul 2007
21:05:25 +0100, in uk.net, 'Owen Rees' wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:08:09 +0100, Jim Crowther
><Don't_bother@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
><hgkZS2Hpx4nGFw9t@nospam.at.my.choice.of.UID.invalid>:
>
>>Assuming a distance to satellite of 36,000km, and speed of light as 
>>3*10^8m/s, that leads to an extra ~240ms round trip for one-way traffic, 
>>or ~480ms if traffic is two-way via the satellite (unusual for domestic 
>>internet use).
>>
>>There may be significant inherent delays within the satellite, I 
>>wouldn't know.
>
>The paper <http://isoc.org/inet97/proceedings/F5/F5_1.HTM> "Satellite
>Communications in the Global Internet: Issues, Pitfalls, and Potential"
>describes some of the issues that arise from the latency for which they
>give these numbers:

Through some strange 'usenet latency' trick, this message has only just
surfaced on my news server (don't ask me, it seems pretty good apart from
the odd peculiar trick like that) so apols for the late reply.

Reason I post is I'm wondering how much progress has been made with
respect to IPv6 over satellite. I've found some write ups of experiments
in that field but nothing that says they're yet carrying it natively.

My thanks for any further clues.

Dave J.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:45:18 +0100, Dave J.  wrote:
> Reason I post is I'm wondering how much progress has been made with
> respect to IPv6 over satellite. I've found some write ups of experiments
> in that field but nothing that says they're yet carrying it natively.

Satellite is just the transport.  Its still IP, but with different
addressing.  You could have other protocols over satellite, (and
do, e.g. television, radio, weather data, ....)


-- 
rgds, Andy Davidson                               Freelance keyboard jockey
                                                              www.andyd.net

In MsgID on 18 Aug 2007 15:32:21 GMT,
in uk.net, 'Andy Davidson' wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:45:18 +0100, Dave J.  wrote:
>> Reason I post is I'm wondering how much progress has been made with
>> respect to IPv6 over satellite. I've found some write ups of experiments
>> in that field but nothing that says they're yet carrying it natively.
>
>Satellite is just the transport.  Its still IP, but with different
>addressing.  You could have other protocols over satellite, (and
>do, e.g. television, radio, weather data, ....)

Ok. Thanks, as far as that goes. You say it's still IP, but is that
carried via anything else?

Is there a particular underlying format? For example, on ethernet the
underlying format is mac packets, would there be an equivalent for
satellite communications? If there is a standard underlying format then it
would give me some search terms to apply.. The results from which might
help in tinkering with a (late) close-friend's satellite gear. Close
enough friend that thinking about him brings tears to eyes. RIP to Ray.

TIA if there's a logical (pun allowed!) answer. I really know *nothing*
about satellite stuff.

Apols. I've accidentally (also) sent this to your email reply-to, thanks
to my attempt to change XNA because of mention of personal detail (which
it would be appreciated if you'd omit from any quote)

Dave J.