[Chugalug] Satcom

Aaron Welch n2nightfall at gmail.com
Wed Jun 26 02:07:56 UTC 2013


Decrease latency?  I have seen packet aggregators that can increase throughput, but latency is a bitch to deal with over wireless links.   On a different note, we were pulling 10mbit down and 512kbit up in the middle of the ocean with Hughes satellite data service.  Had 200-300ms ping times, but that is awesome when you have nothing and are miles offshore.

-AW

On Jun 25, 2013, at 9:40 PM, Stephen Kraus <ub3ratl4sf00 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On that note, we us a packet accelerator for our service to decrease our latency.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Stephen Kraus <ub3ratl4sf00 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> For instance, we actually have a phone on the plane. A good old fashioned phone. If someone sees something interesting, they actually call someone and say 'Hey, I saw such and such, I'm sending it your way for analysis'
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Stephen Kraus <ub3ratl4sf00 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You have to realize (and I can only talk about non-classified non-INFOSEC stuff) that the JSTARS is just one big mobile observation post with IFF. It feeds ground troops valuable targetting and recon data, yes, but at the same time it sends anything it thinks is pertinent back to the DoD for further analysis, and it has to be able to feed this info steadily over a Satellite connection anywhere in the world. And from the size of the RAID arrays on the plane, you can assume its sending some pretty massive files.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Stephen Kraus <ub3ratl4sf00 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Our SATCOM system utilizes basically two satellite channels to achieve ISDN capability (two 64 kb pipes) so that imagery data can be fed back to whoever wants it. This was our old system, via INMARSAT of Britian.
>>>> 
>>>> We have a new SATCOM system, and I don't even have a clue of its throughput yet, but its going to be better.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Mike Harrison <cluon at geeklabs.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Slightly off topic, but the SATCOM stuff the Air Force has is amazing.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Steven, What can you link to or share without fear of giving away national secrets, impuning the NSA.. etc..
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm interested in many ways... for example, I know we have a utility in W. Africa using Sat coms to use Juice and are impressed with how it works in a high latency environment. I know they are on 64k links with 150ms to 300ms round trips.
>>>>> 
>>>>> From memory: 64k might be expressed as one half an ISDN connection,
>>>>> ISDN is 2 B's (64k each) and a D or lower rate data/signalling channel.
>>>>> Multiple B's (64k) can be bonded together for aggregate bandwidth
>>>>> with that D (data) channel providing sync and bonding info.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I can see where that same structure could be used for any communications medium, just kind of suprised that it is. I'd like to know what the useful typical limits are in the military variations.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Chugalug mailing list
>>>>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
>>>>> http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Chugalug mailing list
> Chugalug at chugalug.org
> http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://chugalug.org/pipermail/chugalug/attachments/20130625/74cdcbe8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Chugalug mailing list