Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Setting up Starlink

jeffgeerling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 340 posts

Re: Setting up Starlink

#251

Post by hirundo »

coolpanda0 wrote: post #243
rubatuga wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We actually launched a service that provides you with a public IPv4 address and a /56 IPv6 block over WireGuard. It bypasses CGNAT and provides unblocked ports, including port 25. The cheapest plan starts at $8/month. Here's a link! https://hoppy.network

can by pass Chinese GFW reliably?

According to the story it's locked to a designated "cell" with a diameter of something less than 60 miles, so it would be just a nice modern end-table in China. The fact that it depends on accurate GPS and phones home continuously makes the geofence hard to hack.

Re: Setting up Starlink

#252

Post by walrus01 »

snurfer wrote: post #41

Our Starlink connection (backup WAN) recently switched from a New York ip to one near Chicago. I think we've switched to a downlink station that is geographically closer and we're getting better pings and, possibly, better throughout (needs more testing). The service is expensive, but it's been a fun way to "participate" with all the exciting stuff SpaceX is working on.

for a very brief period of time my starlink connection was exiting the cgnat to the internet in chicago (the first hop that was a public IP was 1-2ms from various ISPs' looking glasses in chicago), and the latency matched for return trip to LEO/back, down to earth station in the pacific northwest, and then transport circuit to chicago and back. Then after a couple of days it went back to Seattle.

Re: Setting up Starlink

#253

Post by zorpner »

ecshafer wrote: post #230
walrus01 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a few people from the Seattle area who do part time work there - unless you enjoy and agree with religious fundamentalists, die-hard MAGA anti maskers or people whose personality revolves around owning 35 guns, you might want to spend some time there first... Boise by comparison is much more secular and liberal than some of those areas.

As you specify people from Seattle, and these people went out of their way to point out that the people are religious, republicans who like guns, I have a feeling they aren't particularly open minded or tolerant people. Religious or secular, blue team or red team, basic politics shouldn't color your ability to get along with people. Fundamentally people are pretty similar, and American culture is quite homogeneous.

I would encourage you to listen to, and believe, the very real experiences of people of color, same-sex couples, and transgender or nonbinary people who have spent time in locations like Eastern Idaho.

Re: Setting up Starlink

#254

Post by iam-TJ »

walrus01 wrote: post #191
wyager wrote: post #179

I’ve been using Starlink for a few months now. It’s great for the cost. One annoying thing is their super non-standard and kind of broken network setup if you want to use your own router. They have two subnets with different IP ranges (cgNAT and local) on the same Ethernet link. You have to do some weird manual routes, interface resets, and dhcp client configuration if you want things to work reliably.

The issue you're seeing there, using your own router, is that during a network-unavailability outage, the starlink terminal will continue serving as a DHCP server to whatever you plug into it. When the network is up and you plug a router into it that's a dhcp client, it'll get an IP address in cgnat space and periodically renew it. When they're doing network maintenance/beta downtime/terminal firmware updates, your r…

Using a very short lease time for 192.168.100.0/24 when CGNAT isn't available would be one way SpaceX could deal with that. The DHCP client would then be frequently renewing the lease.

When CGNAT is available the terminal's DHCP server releases 192.168.100.0/24 and issues/proxies the CGNAT lease.

The terminal would be the default route so packets to 192.168.100.1 would still reach it and responses can be correctly routed back to the client using the Starlink monitoring application.

Re: Setting up Starlink

#255

Post by tonyarkles »

hirundo wrote: post #251
coolpanda0 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can by pass Chinese GFW reliably?

According to the story it's locked to a designated "cell" with a diameter of something less than 60 miles, so it would be just a nice modern end-table in China. The fact that it depends on accurate GPS and phones home continuously makes the geofence hard to hack.

I think they're asking about the Hoppy network, not Starlink.

Re: Setting up Starlink

#256

Post by snielson »

7e wrote: post #76
freedomben wrote: post #73

I'm using Starlink right now. AMA. I'm in East Idaho. Currently my dish angles itself to the north. It rarely moves itself north/south, and slightly moves east/west throughout the day. I've read that right now it locks onto a single satellite, although they're adding multi-satellite support later. My speeds are inconsistent, and interestingly they start slow (around 60 Mbps) but after a couple seconds they'll get to…

Can you compare with T-Mobile’s 5G home Internet plan? Similar numbers advertised, $60 a month, no caps.

I have the Tmobile service. I use at least 500 Gb/mo without problems. Others on the reddit forum use over a Tb without problems. The terms of service say Tmobile will deprioritize us when there is congestion, but I haven't experienced it. Also, it appears that Tmobile is limiting the number of subscribers in a given area to prevent degraded service. Overall, I like it (full disclosure: I have a dual Wan setup with xfinity being the other provider)

Re: Setting up Starlink

#257

Post by anonymousDan »

freedomben wrote: post #131
teh_klev wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> interestingly they start slow (around 60 Mbps) For many of us that's reasonably fast ;). In the UK, FTTC provided over POTS (often BT or some form of unbundle), the top end is 80Mbs/20Mbs. I don't know what you'd expect with cable provisioned areas supplied by the likes of Virgin (DOCSIS).

Oh 60 is fast around here too. I mostly meant that I've never seen a download start slow and progressively get faster. If anything it usually bursts at the begihning and then throttles back (comcast did that to me the most)

It's usually quite common over e.g. 4g. You first have to wake up the radio and attach to a cell tower, which can take 50ms or so. Once you've done that latency for subsequent packets can be much lower (e.g. 5ms).

Re: Setting up Starlink

#258

Post by sillyquiet »

Scoundreller wrote: post #135
house9-2 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 100/16 Mbps is pretty decent I guess Its fantastic, can't wait until this is available where I live. Currently paying $200+ a month for 20Mbps from local wireless company. 2 miles North from here there is AT&T fiber and Comcast available, 5 miles South there is Comcast (150Mbps) but I'm in a small community of homes where only options are satellite or fixed wireless.

Make friends with someone on fibre 2mi away with an old TV tower or at the top of a hill. Set up your own link.

This seems weirdly specific and not terribly practical advice

Re: Setting up Starlink

#259

Post by banana_giraffe »

akamhy wrote: post #36
poisonborz wrote: post #31

> It's powered through PoE++ (using around 100W of power continuously) Not familiar with Sat gear, but this number seems extremely high to me for just powering an antenna (and some motors occasionally)

Just for comparison satellite dish (Satellite television dish) uses approximately 30 watts https://joteo.net/en-us/electricity-usage-calculator/electri...

A better comparison might be HughesNet. Not perfect since it's different classes of satellites, but their modem is spec'd at drawing up to 60 watts on their latest gen. Though, in practice, it tends to draw around 15-25 watts, at least according to comments I can find online.

Re: Setting up Starlink

#260

Post by uomo »

kiwijamo wrote: post #199
1timewonderacc wrote: post #155

I really hope StarLink completely replaces CenturyLink DSL. CenturyLink DSL 30mbps DOWN and 5mbps UP, real world speed is 2mbps DOWN and 512mbps UP. Never goes above this speed. CenturyLink DSL is a complete rip off. Costs $45 and they charge for the modem $10. $55/month total I would be willing to pay $99/month if it had at least real world speed of 30mbps DOWN and 5mbps UP ^_^

512mbps UP?

I assume they meant 512kbps... or they just have strangely great upload speeds.
Post reply on HN