On 3/26/21 12:26 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:

If the last decade is anything to go by, I'm keen to see what the next one brings.

Mark.

So the obvious question is what will happen to the internet 10 years from now. The last 10 years were all about phones and apps, but that's pretty well played out by now. Gratuitously networked devices like my dishwasher will probably be common, but that's hardly exciting. LEO internet providers will be coming online which might make a difference in the corners of the world where it's hard to get access, but will it allow internet access to parachute in behind the Great Firewall? One thing that we are seeing a revolution in is with working from home. That has some implications for networking since symmetric bandwidth, or at least quite a bit more upstream would be helpful as many people found out. Is latency going to drive networking, given gaming? Gamers are not just zitty 15 year olds, they are middle aged or older nowadays. Mike

There are more smart phones in use in the world today the world than can be addressed by IPv4. Complaining about lack of IPv6 deployment has been legitimate for a long time. Telcos shouldn’t have to deploy NATs. Homes shouldn’t have to deploy NATs. Businesses shouldn’t have to deploy NATs. NATs produce a second class Internet. We have had to lived with a second class Internet for so long that most don’t know what they are missing. -- Mark Andrews

On 27 Mar 2021, at 07:14, Andy Ringsmuth <andy@andyring.com> wrote:



...

...

On 3/26/21 12:26 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: If the last decade is anything to go by, I'm keen to see what the next one brings. Mark.

So the obvious question is what will happen to the internet 10 years from now. The last 10 years were all about phones and apps, but that's pretty well played out by now. Gratuitously networked devices like my dishwasher will probably be common, but that's hardly exciting. LEO internet providers will be coming online which might make a difference in the corners of the world where it's hard to get access, but will it allow internet access to parachute in behind the Great Firewall?

One thing that we are seeing a revolution in is with working from home. That has some implications for networking since symmetric bandwidth, or at least quite a bit more upstream would be helpful as many people found out. Is latency going to drive networking, given gaming? Gamers are not just zitty 15 year olds, they are middle aged or older nowadays.

Mike

Ten years from now? Easy. We’ll still be talking about the continued shortage of IPv4 address space and (legitimately) complaining about why IPv6 still isn’t the default addressing/routing methodology for the Internet worldwide.

-Andy

On 3/26/21 23:30, borg@uu3.net wrote:

Oh, sorry to disappoint you, but they are not missing anything.. Internet become a consumer product where data is provided by large corporations similary to TV now. Your avarage Joe consumer does NOT care about NAT and that he cant run services or he does NOT have full e2e communication.

Yep - infrastructure is now implied, to the extent that customers even forget who are they paying for connectivity.

Yes, you are right, NAT was a second class internet for a while but now it seems that we cannot live without it anymore :) I dont really see other way how I can connect LAN to internet now. Using public IPs? Thats so terrible idea. How can I be el-cheappo dual-homed then?

As long as infrastructure continues to dilly-dally, software will fill in the gaps, even if it may cause more breakage in the eyes of the networking purists. Mark.

I've had an IPV6 tunnel from Hurricane Electric for 10+ years I think. IPv4 will probably live as it does now in my network, mostly for management / interserver coms for legacy hardware/software that doesn't support ipv6. On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 5:31 PM <borg@uu3.net> wrote:

Oh, sorry to disappoint you, but they are not missing anything.. Internet become a consumer product where data is provided by large corporations similary to TV now. Your avarage Joe consumer does NOT care about NAT and that he cant run services or he does NOT have full e2e communication.

Yes, you are right, NAT was a second class internet for a while but now it seems that we cannot live without it anymore :) I dont really see other way how I can connect LAN to internet now. Using public IPs? Thats so terrible idea. How can I be el-cheappo dual-homed then?

---------- Original message ----------

From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> To: Andy Ringsmuth <andy@andyring.com> Cc: Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 08:00:38 +1100

There are more smart phones in use in the world today the world than can be addressed by IPv4. Complaining about lack of IPv6 deployment has been legitimate for a long time. Telcos shouldn˙˙t have to deploy NATs. Homes shouldn˙˙t have to deploy NATs. Businesses shouldn˙˙t have to deploy NATs.

NATs produce a second class Internet. We have had to lived with a second class Internet for so long that most don˙˙t know what they are missing. -- Mark Andrews

Since FiOS still doesn't do ipv6 (I don't bother checking anymore) I've used tunnelbroker since I was stuck on Comcast. I'm not running BGP since that's overkill for my home lab needs. just a tunnel with the /64 they give you and an addition /48. If I have to renumber, there are maybe just 4-5 places where an ipv6 is manually set. I'll just setup a new tunnel and change the router advertisement settings. - J On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:53 AM <borg@uu3.net> wrote:

So, I assume you have PI IPv6 space and doing BGP with HE? In other case, if anything will happen to HE (they close they tunnelbroker service) you will have to renumber.

---------- Original message ----------

From: Javier J <javier@advancedmachines.us> To: borg@uu3.net Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 13:57:20 -0400

I've had an IPV6 tunnel from Hurricane Electric for 10+ years I think. IPv4 will probably live as it does now in my network, mostly for management / interserver coms for legacy hardware/software that doesn't support ipv6.

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 5:31 PM <borg@uu3.net> wrote:

...

Oh, sorry to disappoint you, but they are not missing anything.. Internet become a consumer product where data is provided by large corporations similary to TV now. Your avarage Joe consumer does NOT care about NAT and that he cant run services or he does NOT have full e2e communication.

Yes, you are right, NAT was a second class internet for a while but now it seems that we cannot live without it anymore :) I dont really see other way how I can connect LAN to internet now. Using public IPs? Thats so terrible idea. How can I be el-cheappo dual-homed then?

---------- Original message ----------

From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> To: Andy Ringsmuth <andy@andyring.com> Cc: Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 08:00:38 +1100

There are more smart phones in use in the world today the world than can be addressed by IPv4. Complaining about lack of IPv6 deployment has been legitimate for a long time. Telcos shouldn˙˙t have to deploy NATs. Homes shouldn˙˙t have to deploy NATs. Businesses shouldn˙˙t have to deploy NATs.

NATs produce a second class Internet. We have had to lived with a second class Internet for so long that most don˙˙t know what they are missing. -- Mark Andrews

On 3/26/21 2:00 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:

Telcos shouldn’t have to deploy NATs. Homes shouldn’t have to deploy NATs. Businesses shouldn’t have to deploy NATs.

But NATs are good: https://youtu.be/v26BAlfWBm8 (Since we're speaking of things from ~10 years ago...!) -- Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies

On 3/26/21 2:00 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:

There are more smart phones in use in the world today the world than can be addressed by IPv4. Complaining about lack of IPv6 deployment has been legitimate for a long time. Telcos shouldn’t have to deploy NATs. Homes shouldn’t have to deploy NATs. Businesses shouldn’t have to deploy NATs.

NATs produce a second class Internet. We have had to lived with a second class Internet for so long that most don’t know what they are missing.

I thought a fair chunk of mobile phones were using ipv6? Mike

On 3/26/21 21:42, Michael Thomas wrote:

So the obvious question is what will happen to the internet 10 years from now. The last 10 years were all about phones and apps, but that's pretty well played out by now. Gratuitously networked devices like my dishwasher will probably be common, but that's hardly exciting. LEO internet providers will be coming online which might make a difference in the corners of the world where it's hard to get access, but will it allow internet access to parachute in behind the Great Firewall?

One thing that we are seeing a revolution in is with working from home. That has some implications for networking since symmetric bandwidth, or at least quite a bit more upstream would be helpful as many people found out. Is latency going to drive networking, given gaming? Gamers are not just zitty 15 year olds, they are middle aged or older nowadays.

I'm expecting some kind of gubbermint drive in many parts of the world (especially the developing world) to get as much free Internet in the hands of citizens as they possibly can, largely driven by the effects the Coronavirus had on economic productivity last year. This won't go down easy, though. Mark.

On 3/27/21 2:50 AM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 12:42:20 -0700, Michael Thomas said:

...

dishwasher will probably be common, but that's hardly exciting. LEO internet providers will be coming online which might make a difference in the corners of the world where it's hard to get access, but will it allow internet access to parachute in behind the Great Firewall? At which point, we get to see two very different types of LEO engage in mortal combat....

PREEETTTTYYY FIREWORKS!!! I'm sure somebody's thought about this, but are these LEO networks intended to have the downlink at home?  How do the Chinas of the world intend to deal with the Great Firewall implications? Mike

Please don't forget that RF sources can be tracked down by even minimally-well-equipped adversaries. - Jima -----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+nanog=jima.us@nanog.org> On Behalf Of scott Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 19:36 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures) On 3/26/2021 9:42 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:

LEO internet providers will be coming online which might make a difference in the corners of the world where it's hard to get access, but will it allow internet access to parachute in behind the Great Firewall? ............ How do the Chinas of the world intend to deal with the Great Firewall implications?

This is what I hope will change in the next 10 years.  "Turning off the internet" will be harder and harder for folks suppressing others, many times violently, and hiding it from everyone else.  A small-ish antenna easily hidden would be necessary. scott

I would also concur that the likelihood of Starlink (or a Oneweb, or Kuiper) terminal being used successfully to bypass the GFW or similar serious Internet censorship, in an authoritarian environment, is probably low. This is because: a) It has to transmit in known bands. b) It has to be located in a location with a very good, clear view of the sky in all directions (even a single tree obstruction in one section of the sky, relative to where the antenna is mounted will cause packet loss/periodic issues on a starlink beta terminal right now). Visually identifying the terminal would not be hard. c) Portable spectrum analyzers capable of up to 30 GHz are not nearly as expensive as they used to be. They also have much better GUIs and visualization tools than what was available 6-10 years ago. d) You could successfully train local law enforcement to use these sort of portable spectrum analyzers in a one-day, 8-hour training course. e) The equipment would have to be smuggled into the country f) Many people such as in a location like Iran may lack access to a standard payment system for the services (the percentage of Iranians with access to buy things online with visa/mastercard/american express or similar is quite low). There are already plenty of places in the world where if you set up a 1.2, 1.8 or 2.4 meter C, Ku or Ka band VSAT terminal using some sort of geostationary based services, without appropriate government "licenses", men with guns will come to dismantle it and arrest you. I am not saying it is an impossible problem to solve, but any system intended for that sort of purpose would have to be designed for circumvention, and not a consumer/COTS adaptation of an off the shelf starlink terminal. On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 8:31 PM nanog@jima.us <nanog@jima.us> wrote:

Please don't forget that RF sources can be tracked down by even minimally-well-equipped adversaries.

- Jima

-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+nanog=jima.us@nanog.org> On Behalf Of scott Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 19:36 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)

On 3/26/2021 9:42 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:

...

LEO internet providers will be coming online which might make a difference in the corners of the world where it's hard to get access, but will it allow internet access to parachute in behind the Great Firewall? ............ How do the Chinas of the world intend to deal with the Great Firewall implications?

This is what I hope will change in the next 10 years. "Turning off the internet" will be harder and harder for folks suppressing others, many times violently, and hiding it from everyone else. A small-ish antenna easily hidden would be necessary.

scott

This is a fascinating discussion. Also keep in mind that starlink satellites need many earth stations to downlink customer packets and provide internet transit. There are over 50 satellite earth stations in the US already. Here is a great google map of the current ground stations based on FCC license data: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6554578,-111.9151229,4.5z/data=!4m2!6m1!1s1H... -Keith Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote on 3/28/2021 6:58 PM:

No need for all that fancy RF tools. Moreover, detecting >10Ghz transmission is not such an easy task. The beam is most likely narrow enough to be difficult to detect.

But, (for example) it's enough to visit from foreign IPs some local website, to have cookie set: SATELLITE_USER=xyz Then when person use local connection and visit same website, this cookie will send law enforcement hint. And there are many more automated, software-based ways to detect that a device has been connected via satellite in past.

Not to mention the fact that any attempt to provide services illegally is pandora box. At least it may end up with the fact that the country will start jamming uplink frequencies, which will affect the service in whole region. And in the worst case, it will give reason to use anti-satellite weapons.

On 2021-03-29 03:23, Eric Kuhnke wrote:

...

I would also concur that the likelihood of Starlink (or a Oneweb, or Kuiper) terminal being used successfully to bypass the GFW or similar serious Internet censorship, in an authoritarian environment, is probably low. This is because:

a) It has to transmit in known bands.

b) It has to be located in a location with a very good, clear view of the sky in all directions (even a single tree obstruction in one section of the sky, relative to where the antenna is mounted will cause packet loss/periodic issues on a starlink beta terminal right now). Visually identifying the terminal would not be hard.

c) Portable spectrum analyzers capable of up to 30 GHz are not nearly as expensive as they used to be. They also have much better GUIs and visualization tools than what was available 6-10 years ago.

d) You could successfully train local law enforcement to use these sort of portable spectrum analyzers in a one-day, 8-hour training course.

e) The equipment would have to be smuggled into the country

f) Many people such as in a location like Iran may lack access to a standard payment system for the services (the percentage of Iranians with access to buy things online with visa/mastercard/american express or similar is quite low).

There are already plenty of places in the world where if you set up a 1.2, 1.8 or 2.4 meter C, Ku or Ka band VSAT terminal using some sort of geostationary based services, without appropriate government "licenses", men with guns will come to dismantle it and arrest you.

I am not saying it is an impossible problem to solve, but any system intended for that sort of purpose would have to be designed for circumvention, and not a consumer/COTS adaptation of an off the shelf starlink terminal.

On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 8:31 PM nanog@jima.us <nanog@jima.us> wrote:

...

Please don't forget that RF sources can be tracked down by even minimally-well-equipped adversaries.

- Jima

-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+nanog=jima.us@nanog.org> On Behalf Of scott Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 19:36 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)

On 3/26/2021 9:42 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:

...

LEO internet providers will be coming online which might make a difference in the corners of the world where it's hard to get access, but will it allow internet access to parachute in behind the Great

...

Firewall? ............ How do the Chinas of the world intend to deal with the Great Firewall implications?

This is what I hope will change in the next 10 years.  "Turning off the internet" will be harder and harder for folks suppressing others, many times violently, and hiding it from everyone else.  A small-ish antenna easily hidden would be necessary.

scott

    Provided that vertical integration is not allowed, so that we can have actual competition instead of the false "capitalism" paradigm we're having in NA in the TelCo domain.     aka:         Pipes, (BW actual Media)         Services,             -and-         Contents.     stay separate.     ( Kinda jealous of France right now )    PS: Preemptive squash about the "big country" BS peddled by CA TelCo's.  We all know the stories how emerging players where "lawyer'ed" out of existence. ----- Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443 On 3/29/21 2:04 AM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:

The present architecture is logically a bent pipe, where a moving satellite (preferably more than one, for make before break handoff function) needs to be simultaneously in view of a starlink earth station and the CPE.

In the long term this may not be an absolute. Ten beta test satellites that were launched into a near polar orbit a few months back have test equipment on them for inter-satellite laser links.

Satellite to Satellite relay by Ka-band for low bandwidth stuff has been demonstrated and in production for a long time. For quite a while the only two Iridium earth stations existed in Arizona and Hawaii. A handheld phone call or SMS from an Iridium terminal anywhere in the world would make its way through the satellite network to those locations. Statements by Musk indicate that they have a strong desire for a long term ability to do something like that, but optically and with much higher throughput. I would also be surprised if Kuiper does not have similar intentions.

On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 9:05 PM <blakangel@gmail.com <mailto:blakangel@gmail.com>> wrote:

This is a fascinating discussion.

Also keep in mind that starlink satellites need many earth stations to downlink customer packets and provide internet transit. There are over 50 satellite earth stations in the US already.

Here is a great google map of the current ground stations based on FCC license data: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6554578,-111.9151229,4.5z/data=!4m2!6m1!1s1H... <https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6554578,-111.9151229,4.5z/data=!4m2!6m1!1s1H1x8jZs8vfjy60TvKgpbYs_grargieVw>

-Keith

Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote on 3/28/2021 6:58 PM:

> No need for all that fancy RF tools. > Moreover, detecting >10Ghz transmission is not such an easy task. > The beam is most likely narrow enough to be difficult to detect. > > But, (for example) it's enough to visit from foreign IPs some local > website, > to have cookie set: SATELLITE_USER=xyz > Then when person use local connection and visit same website, this cookie > will send law enforcement hint. > And there are many more automated, software-based ways to detect that a > device has been connected via satellite in past. > > Not to mention the fact that any attempt to provide services illegally > is pandora box. > At least it may end up with the fact that the country will start > jamming uplink > frequencies, which will affect the service in whole region. > And in the worst case, it will give reason to use anti-satellite weapons. > > > On 2021-03-29 03:23, Eric Kuhnke wrote: >> I would also concur that the likelihood of Starlink (or a Oneweb, or >> Kuiper) terminal being used successfully to bypass the GFW or similar >> serious Internet censorship, in an authoritarian environment, is >> probably low. This is because: >> >> a) It has to transmit in known bands. >> >> b) It has to be located in a location with a very good, clear view of >> the sky in all directions (even a single tree obstruction in one >> section of the sky, relative to where the antenna is mounted will >> cause packet loss/periodic issues on a starlink beta terminal right >> now). Visually identifying the terminal would not be hard. >> >> c) Portable spectrum analyzers capable of up to 30 GHz are not nearly >> as expensive as they used to be. They also have much better GUIs and >> visualization tools than what was available 6-10 years ago. >> >> d) You could successfully train local law enforcement to use these >> sort of portable spectrum analyzers in a one-day, 8-hour training >> course. >> >> e) The equipment would have to be smuggled into the country >> >> f) Many people such as in a location like Iran may lack access to a >> standard payment system for the services (the percentage of Iranians >> with access to buy things online with visa/mastercard/american express >> or similar is quite low). >> >> There are already plenty of places in the world where if you set up a >> 1.2, 1.8 or 2.4 meter C, Ku or Ka band VSAT terminal using some sort >> of geostationary based services, without appropriate government >> "licenses", men with guns will come to dismantle it and arrest you. >> >> I am not saying it is an impossible problem to solve, but any system >> intended for that sort of purpose would have to be designed for >> circumvention, and not a consumer/COTS adaptation of an off the shelf >> starlink terminal. >> >> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 8:31 PM nanog@jima.us <mailto:nanog@jima.us> <nanog@jima.us <mailto:nanog@jima.us>> wrote: >> >>> Please don't forget that RF sources can be tracked down by even >>> minimally-well-equipped adversaries. >>> >>> - Jima >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+nanog=jima.us@nanog.org <mailto:jima.us@nanog.org>> On Behalf Of >>> scott >>> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 19:36 >>> To: nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> >>> Subject: Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures) >>> >>> On 3/26/2021 9:42 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: >>>> LEO internet providers will be coming online which might make a >>>> difference in the corners of the world where it's hard to get >>> access, >>>> but will it allow internet access to parachute in behind the Great >>> >>>> Firewall? >>> ............ >>>> How do the Chinas of the world intend to deal with the Great >>> Firewall >>>> implications? >>> >>> This is what I hope will change in the next 10 years.  "Turning off >>> the >>> internet" will be harder and harder for folks suppressing others, >>> many >>> times violently, and hiding it from everyone else.  A small-ish >>> antenna >>> easily hidden would be necessary. >>> >>> scott

By definition and orbital mechanics, low earth orbit things don't "park" anywhere. There's an equal number of starlink satellites over Mongolia right now as there are over the same latitude locations in the US and Canada. https://satellitemap.space/ This also becomes intuitive once one plays Kerbal Space Program for a few hours... On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 9:16 PM Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf@dessus.com> wrote:

Net to mention, of course, that the Low Orbit constellation would need to be "parked" over China (or where-ever you want to access it). I am quite sure that "shooting down" such low orbit stationary vehicles would not be too difficult. And if they are owned by an adversary who has no permission to fly those objects in your airspace, I doubt that anything could be done about it.

If I owned a bunch of low orbit satellites costing millions of dollars each, I would not want to "park" them in low orbit over a hostile territory.

Then you also have the requirement to maintain positive control over the satellites which, unlike those in geostationary orbits, need to be under continual thrust and control in order to stay "parked". I doubt that any "private" (ie, non-Government organization) could afford to do so without the cooperation of the state over which they are parking.

-- Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.

...

-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+kmedcalf=dessus.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke Sent: Sunday, 28 March, 2021 18:24 To: nanog@jima.us Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)

I would also concur that the likelihood of Starlink (or a Oneweb, or Kuiper) terminal being used successfully to bypass the GFW or similar serious Internet censorship, in an authoritarian environment, is probably low. This is because:

a) It has to transmit in known bands.

b) It has to be located in a location with a very good, clear view of the sky in all directions (even a single tree obstruction in one section of the sky, relative to where the antenna is mounted will cause packet loss/periodic issues on a starlink beta terminal right now). Visually identifying the terminal would not be hard.

c) Portable spectrum analyzers capable of up to 30 GHz are not nearly as expensive as they used to be. They also have much better GUIs and visualization tools than what was available 6-10 years ago.

d) You could successfully train local law enforcement to use these sort of portable spectrum analyzers in a one-day, 8-hour training course.

e) The equipment would have to be smuggled into the country

f) Many people such as in a location like Iran may lack access to a standard payment system for the services (the percentage of Iranians with access to buy things online with visa/mastercard/american express or similar is quite low).

There are already plenty of places in the world where if you set up a 1.2, 1.8 or 2.4 meter C, Ku or Ka band VSAT terminal using some sort of geostationary based services, without appropriate government "licenses", men with guns will come to dismantle it and arrest you.

I am not saying it is an impossible problem to solve, but any system intended for that sort of purpose would have to be designed for circumvention, and not a consumer/COTS adaptation of an off the shelf starlink terminal.

On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 8:31 PM nanog@jima.us <mailto:nanog@jima.us> <nanog@jima.us <mailto:nanog@jima.us> > wrote:

Please don't forget that RF sources can be tracked down by even minimally-well-equipped adversaries.

- Jima

-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+nanog=jima.us@nanog.org <mailto:jima.us@nanog.org> > On Behalf Of scott Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 19:36 To: nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)

On 3/26/2021 9:42 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: > LEO internet providers will be coming online which might make a > difference in the corners of the world where it's hard to get access, > but will it allow internet access to parachute in behind the Great > Firewall? ............ > How do the Chinas of the world intend to deal with the Great Firewall > implications?

This is what I hope will change in the next 10 years. "Turning off the internet" will be harder and harder for folks suppressing others, many times violently, and hiding it from everyone else. A small-ish antenna easily hidden would be necessary.

scott

The US State Department is already a large customer for dedicated transponder capacity, in C-band hemispheric and Ku beams in some weird places in the world. As a randomly chosen example if you take a look at the roof of the UK embassy in Kabul, there's a nice 4 meter size Andrew/Commscope compact cassegrain dish up there. Pretty typical thing already for embassies, the big difference would be that that they'll have more market options for high-throughput service. On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 10:18 PM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:

On 3/29/21 02:23, Eric Kuhnke wrote:

...

I am not saying it is an impossible problem to solve, but any system intended for that sort of purpose would have to be designed for circumvention, and not a consumer/COTS adaptation of an off the shelf starlink terminal.

Behind the walls of an embassy, perhaps :-).

Mark.

I think the best way to think about what 10 years from now will look like is to compare 10 years ago to the present: https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-April/thread.html - BGP issues/hijacks: for sure, despite everyone's best efforts - Jokes and fun stories: I sure hope so! - Current events (and their impact on NetOps): Yep... - Request for support form ISPs with a complete lack of quality frontline support: 100% guaranteed - Questions about routing standards and associated practices (RRI, RPKI, etc.): Also for sure - DNS problems: It's always DNS, so yes - Vendor recommendation for ABC: Yes, new technologies means new players, old players either keep up or get replaced. - Outages of network providers and popular online services: There will ALWAYS be outages, and we'll always break them down piece by piece for the operators to confirm, deny, or never comment. - Popular vendor doing something bad and the community reacts: Also 100% guaranteed - Big acquisitions: As long as money exits, things will be bought and sold, including companies, big and small. - Staffing questions: Might decrease as automation goes up, but these still pop up - How do I get IPv4: Beaten to death already; yes, will likely still be a thing (and associated discussions about IPv6) - What device should I use for XYZ: Until moore's law hits a plateau, we'll always need better gear You know, posts from 10 years ago, (and 20 years ago for that matter <https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2001-April/thread.html>) don't seem a whole lot different than they are today with the obvious exception of the underlying technologies. Tech that only exists in university labs today will start to see enterprise applications, smaller outfits will start to standardize technology that used to only be available to the big fish, and there will be all sorts of new hotness we're excited about on the horizon, just like 10 years ago... We might be talking a lot more about PRKI as it becomes compulsory, maybe 400G transit links will start being standard across the industry. If we're lucky (or unlucky, depending on how you look at it) maybe a whole new routing protocol will be introduced and rapidly gain popularity. I've joined the group within this past 10 years, and I sure am looking forward to 10 more years of learning, constructive discussion, and entertainment, hopefully in that order of occurrence. Here's to 10 more, ya bunch of nerds, -Matt On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 1:42 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

On 3/26/21 12:26 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:

If the last decade is anything to go by, I'm keen to see what the next one brings.

Mark.

So the obvious question is what will happen to the internet 10 years from now. The last 10 years were all about phones and apps, but that's pretty well played out by now. Gratuitously networked devices like my dishwasher will probably be common, but that's hardly exciting. LEO internet providers will be coming online which might make a difference in the corners of the world where it's hard to get access, but will it allow internet access to parachute in behind the Great Firewall?

One thing that we are seeing a revolution in is with working from home. That has some implications for networking since symmetric bandwidth, or at least quite a bit more upstream would be helpful as many people found out. Is latency going to drive networking, given gaming? Gamers are not just zitty 15 year olds, they are middle aged or older nowadays.

Mike

-- Matt Erculiani ERCUL-ARIN

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 11:39 AM Matt Erculiani <merculiani@gmail.com> wrote:

I think the best way to think about what 10 years from now will look like is to compare 10 years ago to the present: https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-April/thread.html

Multi-homing your DSL connection? I can't wait to multi-home my 10x10 array of StarLink satellites in a few years... -A

I mix Starlink and Comcast over two openvpn tunnels to my datacenter in Ashburn.

<> nathan stratton

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 3:38 PM Matt Erculiani <merculiani@gmail.com> wrote:

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if anyone out there was trying to mix their StarLink kit and existing broadband service to optimize performance and/or add redundancy though.

The underlying technologies will change, but what people try to do with them will remain relatively unchanged.

Back 20 years ago people were talking about their Frame Relay P2P services, now they talk about their Ethernet P2P services.

-Matt

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 1:10 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 11:39 AM Matt Erculiani <merculiani@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I think the best way to think about what 10 years from now will look like is to compare 10 years ago to the present: https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-April/thread.html

Multi-homing your DSL connection? I can't wait to multi-home my 10x10 array of StarLink satellites in a few years...

-A

-- Matt Erculiani ERCUL-ARIN

I am doing this right now. A starlink CPE is a fairly ordinary DIA link that exists in cgnat space from the perspective of whatever router you plug into it. The starlink indoor 'router' is optional. Whatever you plug into the high power PoE injector will be given a DHCP lease and a default route out to the world. People who don't want to DIY a dual-WAN solution with their own Linux box or pfsense or similar can use things like peplink routers. In difficult to reach places in the world I can see starlink with a low-bandwidth traditional VSAT link as backup/failover as a fairly common configuration. Or starlink as primary and local HSPA+/HSDPA/LTE (whatever 3GPP related) as a failover. On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 12:37 PM Matt Erculiani <merculiani@gmail.com> wrote:

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if anyone out there was trying to mix their StarLink kit and existing broadband service to optimize performance and/or add redundancy though.

The underlying technologies will change, but what people try to do with them will remain relatively unchanged.

Back 20 years ago people were talking about their Frame Relay P2P services, now they talk about their Ethernet P2P services.

-Matt

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 1:10 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 11:39 AM Matt Erculiani <merculiani@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I think the best way to think about what 10 years from now will look like is to compare 10 years ago to the present: https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-April/thread.html

Multi-homing your DSL connection? I can't wait to multi-home my 10x10 array of StarLink satellites in a few years...

-A

-- Matt Erculiani ERCUL-ARIN

On 3/27/21 07:30, bzs@theworld.com wrote:

The video is pretty good particularly where it's most pessimistic.

My prediction:

It might take a little more than ten years but I'll predict positive ID or you're not getting anywhere useful.

And a lot of people here will loathe that.

But you/we had your chance and spent most of your energy rebuking it and very little proposing and implementing any working alternative.

The BIG BUCK$ (corps, govts, etc) are sick to death of the current situation and will go along with such proposals. And they have little to zero interest in the usual arguments against it.

Note: I'm being predictive, what I think will happen, not prescriptive, what I want to happen.

At a much higher level, I feel that we should not spend too much time predicting what will happen, as there are very clear trends that have emerged due to the growth of the Internet. But how those trends will actually shape up, no one really does know. Moreover, because creativity knows no bounds nowadays, the pathway is not a straight line. We should just be ready to adjust as things unfold. Mark.