[Fischgericht]

Here is an example thread of someone having done the measurements of v3 vs mini:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/1eg4e4d/starlink_...

Have a look at the downtimes of the system.

A simple way to verify that their inter-sat links are not working and/or are not used is to simply sit and wait: If you are switched from one Sat to the next, you get new "session" and previous NAT state is lost. If this would be a meshed backbone, that would not happen.

[inemesitaffia]

This is ridiculous.

How's service delivered to the South Pole?

Iqaluit?

As long as your traffic is terminated at the same POP, you won't get any session terminations.

And Starlink tells you when your public IP changes anyway

[Fischgericht]

Erm. That person has posted a detailed explanation on how he has measured.

How can this be ridiculous? Is it ridiculous because the data does not match your believes...? Confirmation bias?

It's Data. And it hints, amongst other things that they have seen the same that I am seeing on every single Starlink installation I got my hands on so far: There is no active handover, and no shared state between Sats.

And you are referring to the wrong layer, talking about the ground station. Of course that does not move, and does not forget about your IP. Wrong layer.

It's about the Satellites (!) not doing an active handover and not sharing L2 state, like it would the case for any meshed network, no matter if cellular or WiFi. The analogy here would be a WiFi access point or a cell tower, and you roaming from one to the next while having a phone call, not having any drop-outs. That's the industry standard for Wireless. Starlink isn't there (yet).

If you don't think that true data is true, check ARP table of the MAC of your gateway IP changing after handover.

You appear to be a happy Starlink user - so do you care to share some 24h benchmark with us to prove your claims? I would highly appreciate that!

So far sadly none of the "But it works!" people has been able or willing to provide a benchmark on their own setup. `

Again: I am not here to win and argument. But to change my conclusions, I need data that hints at my conclusions potentially being wrong. As explained elsewhere in this thread, due to lack of serious benchmarks, most of this is based on anecdotical data points.

[inemesitaffia]

There's lots of users in laser only areas doing RTC via VOIP or video. Some of them on Ships in the Persian Gulf (look up SEA-2. https://www.wired.com/story/us-navy-starlink-sea2/)

That person has posted an install in a moving vehicle with the antenna inside.

Do you think I can't read or what?

The ground stations don't handle user IP addresses or even IP packets.

They are strictly layer 2 from the user perspective and traffic is terminated at POP's.

Here's a scientist that does actual work, not the nonsense you've been posting as "data".

https://www.reddit.com/user/panuvic/submitted/

I gave you his email.

I've pointed out to you where you can travel to test laser service yourself.

I'm not saying "but it works"

I pointed out to you places that can't be served without laser connectivity.

It's like asking me to prove the earth isn't flat.

[Fischgericht]

And this link form wired is about something completely unrelated - getting more stable coverage by using multiple different providers. It does not even mention Lasers.

You also clearly do not know what Layer 2 on the ISO/OSI model is.

But you are in total rage mode.

Triggered because the actual data invalidates what your cult says? :)

Sorry, will ignore you from now on. Again: Religion is not my cup of tea, bold claims on powerpoint presentations neither, I prefer to use data. We simply do not share a model of the world that is compatible to discuss these kind of things. No harm done, but no thank you :)

[inemesitaffia]

You can't get service to them on Starlink without lasers.

I gave you more than one link. I gave you an email to a prof.

I started working at a Telco at 13 and got my CCNA there ages ago within a summer break.

You've demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic geography.

Go get your money back from your tutors.

[lxgr]

That person is measuring periodic packet drops (which can also be caused by e.g. having an incomplete view of the sky), and you're drawing unsupportable conclusions on "session drops" from that. (The word "NAT" does not even occur in the observation thread you've linked!)

So, yes, confirmation bias.