Any Satellite Users here ?

Hi There,

I'm looking into sat broadband access for a colleague. Does anyone have
any experience of the performance of the 2 way systems. I'm interested
in the latency as this will be used for VPN access. What is the typical
ping time of somewhere like www.yahoo.com ?
Thanks all
Simon

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:19:59 +0100, Simon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hi There,
>
>I'm looking into sat broadband access for a colleague. Does anyone have
>any experience of the performance of the 2 way systems. I'm interested
>in the latency as this will be used for VPN access. What is the typical
>ping time of somewhere like www.yahoo.com ?
>Thanks all
>Simon

have a look at http://www.aramiska.net/

quite a few counties are being supported by a funded DTI scheme which
could give you a 12 month free trial and supply of all hardware.

We got this for both of our companies sites in NE Lincs c/o Yorkshire
Forward and Business Insight. This free trial is due to expire in 2
months though for us.

Typical download speeds for the 512k service are at max 110k/sec.

we're looking at VPN also but from what i understand the aramiska
service at the end of the 12 month trial would be approx 200ukp/month.
for the little use our connection gets it would be cheaper for us to go
with ntl's broadband package for 100ukp/month if they would take on new
customers!

Simon wrote:

> Chris wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:19:59 +0100, Simon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi There,
>> >
>> >I'm looking into sat broadband access for a colleague. Does anyone have
>> >any experience of the performance of the 2 way systems. I'm interested
>> >in the latency as this will be used for VPN access. What is the typical
>> >ping time of somewhere like www.yahoo.com ?
>> >Thanks all
>> >Simon
>>
>> have a look at http://www.aramiska.net/
>>
>> quite a few counties are being supported by a funded DTI scheme which
>> could give you a 12 month free trial and supply of all hardware.
>>
>> We got this for both of our companies sites in NE Lincs c/o Yorkshire
>> Forward and Business Insight. This free trial is due to expire in 2
>> months though for us.
>>
>> Typical download speeds for the 512k service are at max 110k/sec.
>>
>> we're looking at VPN also but from what i understand the aramiska
>> service at the end of the 12 month trial would be approx 200ukp/month.
>> for the little use our connection gets it would be cheaper for us to go
>> with ntl's broadband package for 100ukp/month if they would take on new
>> customers!
>
> Thanks Chris,
>
> I was looking at this outfit anyway as they say they support VPN access,
> BT's don't. What sort of ping time do you get to say yahoo.com ?
> Thanks again
> Simon
>
>
>

Ping on satelite is awful. >1000ms is fairly normal I think, the data has
to travel huge distances which is why the latency is so high...

Simon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Chris wrote:

>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:19:59 +0100, Simon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi There,
>> >
>> >I'm looking into sat broadband access for a colleague. Does anyone have
>> >any experience of the performance of the 2 way systems. I'm interested
>> >in the latency as this will be used for VPN access. What is the typical
>> >ping time of somewhere like www.yahoo.com ?
>> >Thanks all
>> >Simon
>>
>> have a look at http://www.aramiska.net/
>>
>> quite a few counties are being supported by a funded DTI scheme which
>> could give you a 12 month free trial and supply of all hardware.
>>
>> We got this for both of our companies sites in NE Lincs c/o Yorkshire
>> Forward and Business Insight. This free trial is due to expire in 2
>> months though for us.
>>
>> Typical download speeds for the 512k service are at max 110k/sec.
>>
>> we're looking at VPN also but from what i understand the aramiska
>> service at the end of the 12 month trial would be approx 200ukp/month.
>> for the little use our connection gets it would be cheaper for us to go
>> with ntl's broadband package for 100ukp/month if they would take on new
>> customers!

> Thanks Chris,

> I was looking at this outfit anyway as they say they support VPN access,
> BT's don't. What sort of ping time do you get to say yahoo.com ?
> Thanks again
> Simon

We have been using Aramiska for the last year or so. Their service has
gradually been getting better as they upgrade equipment. We typically
get 500 kbps streaming rate on the 1 Mbps service during working hours
(I do an automatic test transfer every hour), peaking at 800-900 kbps
outside working hours. Ping time:

$ ping www.yahoo.com
PING www.yahoo.akadns.net (216.109.125.74) from 192.168.0.246 : 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from w1.www.dcn.yahoo.com (216.109.125.74): icmp_seq=0 ttl=47 time=932.444 msec
64 bytes from w1.www.dcn.yahoo.com (216.109.125.74): icmp_seq=1 ttl=47 time=934.938 msec
64 bytes from w1.www.dcn.yahoo.com (216.109.125.74): icmp_seq=2 ttl=47 time=741.988 msec
64 bytes from w1.www.dcn.yahoo.com (216.109.125.74): icmp_seq=3 ttl=47 time=708.099 msec
64 bytes from w1.www.dcn.yahoo.com (216.109.125.74): icmp_seq=4 ttl=47 time=705.444 msec
64 bytes from w1.www.dcn.yahoo.com (216.109.125.74): icmp_seq=5 ttl=47 time=810.638 msec
64 bytes from w1.www.dcn.yahoo.com (216.109.125.74): icmp_seq=6 ttl=47 time=708.965 msec
64 bytes from w1.www.dcn.yahoo.com (216.109.125.74): icmp_seq=7 ttl=47 time=678.667 msec

We use VPN quite a bit - it's fine for email and intranet browsing, a
bit slow for telnet as you'd expect. Fiddling with MTU and window size
can improve streaming VPN performance. I think I can get about 110
kbps over my home NTL 150k cable connection via VPN to work. Aramiska
support port forwarding for both PPTP and IPSEC. They also support SMTP
port forwarding for outgoing mail to be redirected to your internal
server. They have HTTP cacheing both on the access box on the customer
site and elsewhere in their network.

If we could get cable or ADSL, I would almost certainly go for that
instead - based on monthly cost and responsiveness of web surfing - but
we don't currently have the option.

Andrew.

>Thanks Chris,
>
>I was looking at this outfit anyway as they say they support VPN access,
>BT's don't. What sort of ping time do you get to say yahoo.com ?
>Thanks again
>Simon
>

heres a ping through to yahoo & also one to the newsgroup provider
giganews.


Pinging yahoo.com [66.218.71.198] with 32 bytes of data

Reply from 66.218.71.198: bytes=32 time=881ms TTL=237
Reply from 66.218.71.198: bytes=32 time=891ms TTL=237
Reply from 66.218.71.198: bytes=32 time=862ms TTL=237
Reply from 66.218.71.198: bytes=32 time=1232ms TTL=237

Ping statistics for 66.218.71.198:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss)
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 862ms, Maximum = 1232ms, Average = 966m


Pinging www.giganews.com [216.166.62.81] with 32 bytes of data

Reply from 216.166.62.81: bytes=32 time=691ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.166.62.81: bytes=32 time=841ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.166.62.81: bytes=32 time=981ms TTL=236
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 216.166.62.81:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss)
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 691ms, Maximum = 981ms, Average = 628ms

Simon wrote:

> Hi There,
>
> I'm looking into sat broadband access for a colleague. Does anyone have
> any experience of the performance of the 2 way systems. I'm interested
> in the latency as this will be used for VPN access. What is the typical
> ping time of somewhere like www.yahoo.com ?


If its geostationary and two way, the total round trip time is 4 times
the orbit radius - about 24000 miles from memory?

Which is nigh on 100,000 miles in total - somewhat over 500ms. Add a bit
more in for queueing and latency, and your perceived response to
keypress is getting on for a second or so.

If you use a modem type backlink, its a bit better.

Its OK for web access and e-mail, but it's totally useless for

- terminal sessions (telnet)
- online games
- remote file transfer of a type where the packet sizes are small (spend
all yer time waiting for acks).

I would NOT use it in a VPN scenario where you are e.g. connecting to
LAN services that cannot cope with the latency. I suspect it will be an
expensive mistake



> Thanks all
> Simon
>
>

Chris wrote:

> >Thanks Chris,
> >
> >I was looking at this outfit anyway as they say they support VPN access,
> >BT's don't. What sort of ping time do you get to say yahoo.com ?
> >Thanks again
> >Simon
> >
>
> heres a ping through to yahoo & also one to the newsgroup provider
> giganews.
>
> Pinging yahoo.com [66.218.71.198] with 32 bytes of data
>
> Reply from 66.218.71.198: bytes=32 time=881ms TTL=237
> Reply from 66.218.71.198: bytes=32 time=891ms TTL=237
> Reply from 66.218.71.198: bytes=32 time=862ms TTL=237
> Reply from 66.218.71.198: bytes=32 time=1232ms TTL=237
>
> Ping statistics for 66.218.71.198:
> Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss)
> Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
> Minimum = 862ms, Maximum = 1232ms, Average = 966m
>
> Pinging www.giganews.com [216.166.62.81] with 32 bytes of data
>
> Reply from 216.166.62.81: bytes=32 time=691ms TTL=236
> Reply from 216.166.62.81: bytes=32 time=841ms TTL=236
> Reply from 216.166.62.81: bytes=32 time=981ms TTL=236
> Request timed out.
>
> Ping statistics for 216.166.62.81:
> Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss)
> Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
> Minimum = 691ms, Maximum = 981ms, Average = 628ms

Thanks very much guys for the replies, much appreciated.

Simon

The Natural Philosopher <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Simon wrote:

>> Hi There,
>>
>> I'm looking into sat broadband access for a colleague. Does anyone have
>> any experience of the performance of the 2 way systems. I'm interested
>> in the latency as this will be used for VPN access. What is the typical
>> ping time of somewhere like www.yahoo.com ?

> If its geostationary and two way, the total round trip time is 4 times
> the orbit radius - about 24000 miles from memory?

> Which is nigh on 100,000 miles in total - somewhat over 500ms. Add a bit
> more in for queueing and latency, and your perceived response to
> keypress is getting on for a second or so.

> If you use a modem type backlink, its a bit better.

> Its OK for web access and e-mail, but it's totally useless for

> - terminal sessions (telnet)

Not useless, just slow.

> - online games

Wouldn't know. ;-)

> - remote file transfer of a type where the packet sizes are small (spend
> all yer time waiting for acks).

We haven't had any trouble with http or ftp streaming. The common
approach to mitigating the effect of long round trip times (which are
not necessarily limited to satellite connections) is to have a larger
window during which packets may be received without ACKs being sent. The
size of the packets then becomes of little significance as long as the
window is the right size.

> I would NOT use it in a VPN scenario where you are e.g. connecting to
> LAN services that cannot cope with the latency. I suspect it will be an
> expensive mistake

We use it with VPN fine - email, web, ftp. Expensive, yes, but not a
mistake. ;-)

Andrew.

Andrew Haylett wrote:

> The Natural Philosopher <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Simon wrote:
>>
>
>>>Hi There,
>>>
>>>I'm looking into sat broadband access for a colleague. Does anyone have
>>>any experience of the performance of the 2 way systems. I'm interested
>>>in the latency as this will be used for VPN access. What is the typical
>>>ping time of somewhere like www.yahoo.com ?
>>>
>
>>If its geostationary and two way, the total round trip time is 4 times
>>the orbit radius - about 24000 miles from memory?
>>
>
>>Which is nigh on 100,000 miles in total - somewhat over 500ms. Add a bit
>>more in for queueing and latency, and your perceived response to
>>keypress is getting on for a second or so.
>>
>
>>If you use a modem type backlink, its a bit better.
>>
>
>>Its OK for web access and e-mail, but it's totally useless for
>>
>
>>- terminal sessions (telnet)
>>
>
> Not useless, just slow.
>
>
>>- online games
>>
>
> Wouldn't know. ;-)
>
>
>>- remote file transfer of a type where the packet sizes are small (spend
>>all yer time waiting for acks).
>>
>
> We haven't had any trouble with http or ftp streaming. The common
> approach to mitigating the effect of long round trip times (which are
> not necessarily limited to satellite connections) is to have a larger
> window during which packets may be received without ACKs being sent. The
> size of the packets then becomes of little significance as long as the
> window is the right size.
>
>
>>I would NOT use it in a VPN scenario where you are e.g. connecting to
>>LAN services that cannot cope with the latency. I suspect it will be an
>>expensive mistake
>>
>
> We use it with VPN fine - email, web, ftp. Expensive, yes, but not a
> mistake. ;-)
>


I was thinking more of remotely mounting the office file systems. Not
sure how SMB copes with big delayes.

I agree FTP, http, e-mail will all be fine.

I disagree that TELNET is useable in any practical way if what you type
takes a second to appear.




> Andrew.
>

The Natural Philosopher <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> We use it with VPN fine - email, web, ftp. Expensive, yes, but not a
>> mistake. ;-)

> I was thinking more of remotely mounting the office file systems. Not
> sure how SMB copes with big delayes.

SMB isn't very good over remote slowish connections anyway. For
example, it starts squirrelling stuff over the net even if you just
click on (select, not open) a file in a folder. My solution is to
provide a comprehensive web-based interface to our workgroups intranet
to allow upload, download, auto-compression of entire directories, etc.
It has plenty of useful side-effects, including avoiding the problem
of (workgroup) browsing not working properly over remote connections
anyway.

> I disagree that TELNET is useable in any practical way if what you type
> takes a second to appear.

One has to develop a certain technique (mental buffering?) and fairly
accurate typing, but I certainly find it useable if sub-optimal (even
with vi!). VPN over ISDN (our backup solution) is certainly much more
responsive...

Andrew.