Internet-Draft Problems and Requirements of Satellite N July 2021
Han & Li Expires 4 January 2022 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-lhan-problems-requirements-satellite-net-00
Published:
Intended Status:
Informational
Expires:
Authors:
L. Han, Ed.
Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
R. Li
Futurewei Technologies, Inc.

Problems and Requirements of Satellite Constellation for Internet

Abstract

This document presents the detailed analysis about the problems and requirements of satellite constellation used for Internet. It starts from the satellite orbit basics, coverage calculation, then it estimates the time constraints for the communications between satellite and ground-station, also between satellites. How to use satellite constellation for Internet is discussed in details including the satellite relay and satellite networking. The problems and requirements of using traditional network technology for satellite network integrating with Internet are finally outlined.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 4 January 2022.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Satellite constellation for Internet is emerging. Even there is no constellation network established completely yet at the time of the publishing of the draft (June, 2021), some basic internet service has been provided and has demonstrated competitive quality to traditional broadband service.

This memo will analyze the challenges for satellite network used in Internet by traditional routing and switching technologies. It is based on the analysis of the dynamic characters of both ground-station-to-satellite and inter-satellite communications and its impact to satellite constellation networking.

The memo also provides visions for the future solution, such as in routing and forwarding.

The memo focuses on the topics about how the satellite network can work with Internet. It does not focus on physical layer technologies (wireless, spectrum, laser, mobility, etc.) for satellite communication.

2. Terminology

LEO
Low Earth Orbit with the altitude from 180 km to 2000 km.
VLEO
Very Low Earth Orbit with the altitude below 450 km
MEO
Medium Earth Orbit with the altitude from 2000 km to 35786 km
GEO
Geosynchronous orbit with the altitude 35786 km
GSO
Geosynchronous satellite on GEO
ISL
Inter Satellite Link
ISLL
Inter Satellite Laser Link
EIRP
Effective isotropic radiated power
P2MP
Point to Multiple Points
GS
Ground Station, a device on ground connecting the satellite. In the document, GS will hypothetically provide L2 and/or L3 functionality in addition to process/send/receive radio wave. It might be different as the reality that the device to process/send/receive radio wave and the device to provide L2 and/or L3 functionality could be separated.
SGS
Source ground station. For a specified flow, a ground station that will send data to a satellite through its uplink.
DGS
Destination ground station. For a specified flow, a ground station that is connected to a local network or Internet, it will receive data from a satellite through its downlink and then forward to a local network or Internet.
PGW
Packet Gateway
UPF
User Packet Function
PE router
Provider Edge router
CE router
Customer Edge router
P router
Provider router
LSA
Link-state advertisement
LSP
Link-State PDUs
L1
Layer 1, or Physical Layer in OSI model [OSI-Model]
L2
Layer 2, or Data Link Layer in OSI model [OSI-Model]
L3
Layer 3, or Network Layer in OSI model [OSI-Model], it is also called IP layer in TCP/IP model
BGP
Border Gateway Protocol [RFC4271]
eBGP
External Border Gateway Protocol, two BGP peers have different Autonomous Number
iBGP
Internal Border Gateway Protocol, two BGP peers have same Autonomous Number
IGP
Interior gateway protocol, examples of IGPs include Open Shortest Path First (OSPF [RFC2328]), Routing Information Protocol (RIP [RFC2453]), Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS [RFC7142]) and Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP [RFC7868]).

3. Overview

The traditional satellite communication system is composed of few GSO and ground stations. For this system, each GSO can cover 42% Earth's surface [GEO-Coverage], so as few as three GSO can provide the global coverage theoretically. With so huge coverage, GSO only needs to amplify signals received from uplink of one ground station and relay to the downlink of another ground station. There is no inter-satellite communications needed. Also, since the GSO is stationary to the ground station, there is no mobility issue involved.

Recently, more and more LEO and VLEO satellites have been launched, they attract attentions due to their advantages over GSO and MEO in terms of higher bandwidth, lower cost in satellite, launching, ground station, etc. Some organizations [ITU-6G][Surrey-6G][Nttdocomo-6G] have proposed the non-terrestrial network using LEO, VLEO as important parts for 6G to extend the coverage of Internet. SpaceX has started to build the satellite constellation called StarLink that will deploy over 10 thousands LEO and VLEO satellites finally [StarLink]. China also started to request the spectrum from ITU to establish a constellation that has 12992 satellites [China-constellation]. European Space Agency (ESA) has proposed "Fiber in the sky" initiative to connect satellites with fiber network on Earth [ESA-HydRON].

When satellites on MEO, LEO and VLEO are deployed, the communication problem becomes more complicated than for GSO. This is because the altitude of MEO/LEO/VLEO satellites are much lower. As a result, the coverage of each satellite is much smaller than for GSO, and the satellite is not relatively stationary to the ground. This will lead to:

  1. More satellites than GSO are needed to provide the global coverage. Section 4.2 will analyze the coverage area, and the minimum number of satellite required to cover the earth surface.
  2. The point-to-point communication between satellite and ground station will not be static. Mobility issue has to be considered. Detailed analysis will be done in Section 5.1.
  3. The inter-satellite communication is needed, and all satellites need to form a network. details are described in Section 5.2.

In addition to above context, Section 7 will address the problem and requirements when satellite constellation is joining Internet.

As the 1st satellite constellation company in history, the SpaceX/StarLink will be inevitably mentioned in the draft. But it must be noted that all information about SpaceX/StarLink in the draft are from public. Authors of the draft have no relationship or relevant inside knowledge of SpaceX/Starlink.

4. Basics of Satellite Constellation

This section will introduce some basics for satellite such as orbit parameters, coverage estimation, minimum number of satellite and orbit plane required, real deployments.

4.1. Satellite Orbit

The orbit of a satellite can be either circular or ecliptic, it can be described by following Keplerian elements [KeplerianElement]:

  1. Inclination (i)
  2. Longitude of the ascending node (Omega)
  3. Eccentricity (e)
  4. Semimajor axis (a)
  5. The withdraw BGP routes are redistributed into IGP, IGP starts to flood the LSA to all satellites.
  6. Argument of periapsis (omega)
  7. True anomaly (nu)

For a circular orbit, two parameters, Inclination and Longitude of the ascending node, will be enough to describe the orbit.

4.2. Coverage of LEO and VLEO Satellites and Minimum Number Required

The coverage of a satellite is determined by many physical factors, such as spectrum, transmitter power, the antenna size, the altitude of satellite, the air condition, the sensitivity of receiver, etc. EIRP could be used to measure the real power distribution for coverage. It is not deterministic due to too many variants in a real environment. The alternative method is to use the minimum elevation angle from user terminals or gateways to a satellite. This is easier and more deterministic. [SpaceX-Non-GEO] has suggested originally the minimum elevation angle of 35 degrees and deduced the radius of the coverage area are about 435km and 1230km for VLEO (altitude 335.9km) and LEO (altitude 1150km) respectively. The details about how the coverage is calculated from the satellite elevation angle can be found in [Satellite-coverage].

Using this method to estimate the coverage, we can also estimate the minimum number of satellite required to cover the earth surface.

It must be noted, SpaceX has recently reduced the required minimum elevation angle from 35 degree to 25 degree. The following analysis still use 35 degree.

Assume there is multiple orbit planes with the equal angular interval across the earth surface (The Longitude of the ascending node for sequential orbit plane is increasing with a same angular interval). Each orbit plane will have:

  1. The same altitude.
  2. The same inclination of 90 degree.
  3. The same number of satellites.

With such deployment, all orbit planes will meet at north and south pole. The density of satellite are not equal. Satellite is more dense in the space above the polar area than in the space above the equator area. Below estimations are made in the worst covered area, or the area of equator where the satellite density is the minimum.

Figure 1 illustrates the coverage area on equator area, and each satellite will cover one hexagon area. The figure is based on plane geometry instead of spherical geometry for simplification, so, the orbit is parallel approximately.

Figure 2 shows how to calculate the radius (Rc) of coverage area from the satellite altitude (As) and the elevation angle (b).

                       x
            |          |
            |          |
            x      *********
            |     *    |    *
            |    *     |     *
        *********      x      *
       *    |    *     |     *
      *     |     *    |    *
     *      x      *********
      *     |     *    |
       *    |    *     |
        *********      x
            |          |
            |       orbit 2          ^ north
            x                        |
            |                        |
            |                        |
          orbit 1                    +-------> east

Figure 1

Satellite coverage on ground


        |<---  2*Rc --->|

                + Satellite
               /|
              / |
             /  |
            / b |
           /-\  +
          /   * |     __Earth surface
         /  *   |    /
        / *_----+----__
        +               +
         *             *
          *           *
           *   2*a   *
            *  ___  *
             *-   -*
              *   *
               * *
                * Earth center
Figure 2

Satellite coverage estimation

x
The vertical projection of satellite to Earth
Re
The radius of the Earth, Re=6378(km)
As
The altitude of a satellite
Rc
The radius (arc length) of the coverage, or, the arc length of hexagon center to its 6 vertices. Rc=Re*(a*pi)/180
a
The cap angle for the coverage area (the RC arc). a = arccos((Re/(Re+As))*cos(b))-b.
b
The least elevation angle that a ground station or a terminal can communicate with a satellite, b = 35 degree.
Ns
The minimum number of satellite on one orbit plane, it is equal to the number of the satellite's vertical projection on Earth, so, Ns = 180/(a*cos(30))
No
The minimum number of orbit (with same inclination), it is equal to the number of the satellite orbit's vertical projection, so, No = 360/(a*(1+sin(30)))

For a example of two type of satellite LEO and VEO, the coverages are calculated as in Table 1:

Table 1: Satellite coverage estimation for LEO and VLEO examples
Parameters VLEO1 VLEO2 LEO1 LEO2
As(km) 335.9 450 1100 1150
a(degree) 3.907 5.078 10.681 11.051
Rc(km) 435 565 1189 1230
Ns 54 41 20 19
No 62 48 23 22

4.3. Real Deployment of LEO and VLEO for Satellite Network

Obviously, the above orbit parameter setup is not optimal since the sky in the polar areas will have the highest density of satellite.

In the real deployment, to provide better coverage for the areas with denser population, to get redundance and better signal quality, and to make the satellite distance within the range of inter-satellite communication (2000km [Laser-communication-range]), more than the minimum number of satellites are launched. For example, different orbit planes with different inclination/altitude are used.

Normally, all satellites are grouped by orbit planes, each group has a number of orbit planes and each orbit plane has the same orbit parameters, so, each orbit in the same group will have:

  1. The same altitude
  2. The same inclination, but the inclination is less than 90 degree. This will result in the empty coverage for polar areas and better coverage in other areas. See the orbit picture for phrase 1 for [StarLink].
  3. The same number of satellites
  4. The same moving direction for all satellites

The proposed deployment of SpaceX can be seen in [SpaceX-Non-GEO] for StarLink.

The China constellation deployment and orbit parameters can be seen in [China-constellation].

5. Communications for Satellite Constellation

Unlike the communication on ground, the communication for satellite constellation is much more complicated. There are two mobility aspects, one is between ground-station and satellite, another is between satellites.

In the traditional mobility communication system, only terminal is moving, the mobile core network including base station, front haul and back haul are static, thus an anchor point, i.e., PGW in 4G or UPF in 5G, can be selected for the control of mobility session. Unfortunately, when satellite constellation joins the static network system of Internet on ground, there is no such anchor point can be selected since the whole satellite constellation network is moving.

Another special aspect that can impact the communication is that the fast moving speed of satellite will cause frequent changes of communication peers and link states, this will make big challenges to the network side for the packet routing and delivery, session control and management, etc.

5.1. Dynamic Ground-station-Satellite Communication

All satellites are moving and will lead to the communication between ground station and satellite can only last a certain period of time. This will greatly impact the technologies for the satellite networking. Below illustrates the approximate speed and the time for a satellite to pass through its covered area.

In Table 2, VLEO1 and LEO3 have the lowest and highest altitude respectively, VLEO2 is for the highest altitude for VLEO. We can see that longest communication time of ground-station-satellite is less than 400 seconds, the longest communication time for VLEO ground-station-satellite is less than 140 seconds.

Re
The radius of the Earth, Re=6378(km)
As
The altitude of a satellite
AL
The arc length(in km) of two neighbor satellite on the same orbit plane, AL=2*cos(30)*(Re+As)*(a*pi)/180
SD
The space distance(in km) of two neighbor satellite on the same orbir plane, SD=2*(Re+As)*sin(AL/(2*(Re+As))).
V
the velocity (in m/s) of satellite, V=sqrt(G*M/(Re+As))
G
Gravitational constant, G=6.674*10^(-11)(m^3/(kg*s^2))
M
Mass of Earth, M=5.965*10^24 (kg)
T
The time (in second) for a satellite to pass through its cover area, or, the time for the station-satellite communication. T= ALs/V
Table 2: The time for the ground-station-satellite communication
Parameters VLEO1 VLEO2 LEO1 LEO2 LEO3
As(km) 335.9 450 1100 1150 1325
a(degree) 3.907 5.078 10.681 11.051 12.293
AL(km) 793 1048 2415 2515 2863
SD(km) 792.5 1047.2 2404 2503.2 2846.1
V(km/s) 7.7 7.636 7.296 7.272 7.189
T(s) 103 137 331 346 398

5.2. Dynamic Inter-satellite Communication

In order to form a network by satellites, there must be a inter-satellite communication. Traditionally, inter-satellite communication uses the microwave technology, but it has following disadvantages:

  1. Bandwidth is limited and only up to 600M bps [Microwave-vs-Laser-communication].
  2. Security is a concern since the microwave beam is relatively wide and it is easy for 3rd party to sniff or attack.
  3. Big antenna size.
  4. Power consumption is high.
  5. High cost per bps.

Recently, laser is used for the inter-satellite communication, it has following advantages, and will be the future for inter-satellite communication.

  1. Higher bandwidth and can be up to 10G bps [Microwave-vs-Laser-communication].
  2. Better security since the laser beam size is much narrower than microwave, it is harder for sniffing.
  3. The size of optical lens for laser is much smaller than microwave's antenna size.
  4. Power saving compared with microwave.
  5. Lower cost per bps.

The range for satellite-to-satellite communications has been estimated to be approximately 2,000 km currently [Laser-communication-range].

From Table 2, we can see the Space Distance (SD) for some LEO (altitude over 1100km) are exceeding the celling of the range of laser communication, so, the satellite and orbit density for LEO need to be higher than the estimation values in the Table 1.

Assume the laser communication is used for inter-satellite communication, then we can analyze the life time of inter-satellite communication when satellites are moving. The Figure 3 illustrates the movement and relative position of satellites on three orbits. The inclination of orbit planes are 90 degree.

                       + North pole
                      /|\
                     | s |
                    s  |  s
                   /   s   \
                   s   |   s
                   |   s1  |
                   s4  |   s6
                   |   s2  |   -------- Equator
                   s5  |   s7
                   |   s3  |
                   s   |   s
                   \   s   /
                    s  |  s
                     | s |
                      \|/
                       +  South pole
Figure 3

Satellite movement

There are three scenarios:

1. For satellites within the same orbit
The satellites in the same orbit will move to the same direction with the same speed, thus the interval between satellites is relatively steady. Each satellite can communicate with its front and back neighbor satellite as long as satellite's orbit is maintained in its life cycle. For example, in Figure 3, s2 can communication with s1 and s3.
2. For satellites between neighbor orbits in the same group
The orbits for the same group will share the same orbit altitude and inclination. So, the satellite speed in different orbit are also same. Similar to the scenario 1, the relative position of satellites in different orbit is relatively steady as long as satellite's orbit is maintained in its life cycle. For this scenario, a satellite can communicate with a satellite ahead in the previous and next orbit, it can also communicate with a satellite behind in the previous and next orbit. For example, the s2 communicates with s4, s5, s6, s7.
3. For satellites between different orbits in the different group
The orbits for the different group will have different orbit altitude, inclination and speed. So, the relative position of satellite is not static. The inter-satellite communication can only last for a while when the distance between two satellite is within the limit of inter-satellite communication, that is 2000km for laser [Laser-communication-range].

For the scenario 3, the estimation of the life time when two satellite can communicate are as follows.

Figure 4 illustrates two satellites move and intersect with an angle

               ^ V2
              /
             +-\ A
            /   |
-----------/----+-------> V1
          /
         /
        /
Figure 4

Satellite (speed vector V1 and V2) intersects with Angle A

Dl
The laser communication limit, Dl=2000km [Laser-communication-range]
Da
Altitude difference (in km) for two orbit plane
A
The angle between two orbit's vertical projection on Earth
Vl
The speed vector of satellite on orbit 1
V2
The speed vector of satellite on orbit 2
|V|
the magnitude of the difference of two speed vector V1 and V2, |v|=|V1-V2|=sqrt((V1-V2*cos(A))^2+(V2*sin(A))^2)
T
The life time two satellites can communicate, or the time of two satellites' distance is within the range of communication, T = 2*sqrt(Dl^2-Da^2)/|V|

Using formulas above, below is the estimation for the life of communication of two satellites when they intersect. Table 3 and Table 4 are for two VLEOs with the difference of 114.1km for altitude. (VLEO1 and VLEO2 on Table 2). Table 5 and Table 6 are for two LEOs with the difference of 175km for altitude (LEO2 and LEO3 on Table 2).

Table 3: Two VLEO with different altitude and speed
Parameters VLEO1 VLEO2
As(km) 335.9 450
V (km/s) 7.7 7.636
Table 4: Two VLEO intersects with different angle and the life of communication
A (degree) 0 10 45 90 135 180
|V| (km/s) 0.065 1.338 5.869 10.844 14.169 15.336
T(s) 61810 2984 680 368 282 260
Table 5: Two LEO with different altitude and speed
Parameters LEO1 LEO2
As(km) 1150 1325
V (km/s) 7.272 7.189
Table 6: Two LEO intersects with different angle and the life of communication
A (degree) 0 10 45 90 135 180
|V| (km/s) 0.083 1.263 5.535 10.226 13.360 14.461
T(s) 47961 3155 720 390 298 276

6. Use Satellite Network for Internet

Since there is no complete satellite network established yet, all following analysis is based on the predictions from the traditional GEO communication. The analysis also learnt how other type of network has been used in Internet, such as Broadband access network, Mobile access network, Enterprise network and Service Provider network.

As a criteria to be part of Internet, any device connected to any satellite should be able to communicate with any public IP4 or IPv6 address in Internet. There could be three type of methods to deliver IP packet from source to destination by satellite:

1. Data packet is relayed between ground station and satellite.
For this method, there is no inter-satellite communication and networking. Data packet is bounced once or couple times between ground stations and satellites until the packet arrives at the destination in Internet.
2. Data packet is delivered by inter-satellite networking.
For this method, The data packet traverses with multiple satellites and inter-satellite networking is used to deliver the packet to the destination in Internet.
3. Both satellite relay and inter-satellite networking are used.
For this method, The data packet is relayed in some segments and traverse with multiple satellites in other segments. It is a combination of the method 1 and method 2.

Using the above methods, follows are typical deployment scenarios that a Satellite network is integrated with Internet:

1. The end user terminal access Internet through satellite relay
(Figure 5 for one satellite relay, Figure 6 for multiple satellite relay).
2. The end user terminal access Internet through inter-satellite-networking
(Figure 7).
3. The local network access Internet through satellite relay
(Figure 8 for one satellite relay, Figure 9 for multiple satellite relay).
4. The local network access Internet through inter-satellite-networking
(Figure 10).
           S1----\            /-----------\
          /       \          /             \
 T---GW--GS1--S2--GS2-------PE   Internet   +
          \       /          \             /
           \---S3/            \-----------/
Figure 5

End user terminal access Internet through one satellite relay

           S1----\    S4----\       /-----------\
          /       \  /       \     /             \
 T---GW--GS1--S2--GS2---S5--GS3---PE   Internet   +
          \       /  \       /     \             /
           \---S3/    \---S6/       \-----------/
Figure 6

End user terminal access Internet through multiple satellite relay

           S1-----S2-----S3--\            /----------\
          /                   \          /            \
 T---GW--GS1--S4----S5---S6---GS2-------PE  Internet   +
          \                   /          \            /
           \---S7----S8----S9/            \----------/
Figure 7

End user terminal access Internet through inter-satellite-networking

   /-----------\           S1----\           /-------\
  /             \         /       \         /         \
 + Local network CE------GS1--S4--GS2-------PE Internet +
  \             /         \       /         \         /
   \-----------/           \---S7/           \-------/
Figure 8

Local network access Internet through one satellite relay

   /-----------\         S1----\   S4----\       /-------\
  /             \       /       \  /      \     /         \
 + Local network CE----GS1--S2--GS2--S5--GS3---PE Internet +
  \             /       \       / \       /     \         /
   \-----------/         \---S3/   \---S6/       \-------/
Figure 9

Local network access Internet through multiple satellite relay

  /-----------\          S1-----S2-----S3---\            /------\
 /             \         /                   \          /        \
+ Local network CE------GS1--S4----S5---S6---GS2-------PE Internet+
 \             /         \                   /          \        /
  \-----------/           \---S7----S8----S9/            \------/

Figure 10

Local network access Internet through inter-satellite-networking

In above Figure 5 to Figure 10, the meaning of symbols are as follows:

T
The end user terminal
GW
Gateway router
GS1, GS2, GS3
Ground station with L2/L3 routing/switch functionality.
S1 to S9
Satellites
PE
Provider Edge Router
CE
Customer Edge Router

7. Problems and Requirements for Satellite Constellation for Internet

As described in Section 6, satellites in a satellite constellation can either relay internet traffic or multiple satellites can form a network to deliver internet traffic. More detailed analysis are in following sub sections. There might have multiple solutions for each method described in Section 6, following contexts only discuss the most plausible solution from networking perspectives.

Section 7.1 will list the common problems and requirements for both satellite relay and satellite networking.

Section 7.2 and Section 7.3 will describe key problems, requirement and potential solution from the networking perspective for these two cases respectively.

7.1. Common Problems and Requirements

For both satellite relay and satellite networking, satellite-ground-station must be used, so, the problems and requirements for the satellite-ground-station communication is common and will apply for both methods.

When one satellite is communicating with ground station, the satellite only needs to receive data from uplink of one ground station, process it and then send to the downlink of another ground station. Figure 5 illustrates this case. Normally microwave is used for both links.

Additionally, from the coverage analysis in Section 4.2 and real deployment in Section 4.3, we can see one ground station may communicate with multiple satellites. Similarly, one satellite may communicate with multiple ground stations. The characters for satellite-ground-station communication are:

1. Satellite-ground-station communication is P2MP.
Since microwave physically is the carrier of broadcast communication, one satellite can send data while multiple ground stations can receive it. Similarly, one ground station can send data and multiple satellites can receive it.
2. Satellite-ground-station communication is in open space and not secure.
Since electromagnetic fields for microwave physically are propagating in open space. The satellite-ground-station communication is also in open space. It is not secure naturally.
3. Satellite-ground-station communication is not steady.
Since the satellite is moving with high speed, from Section 5.1, the satellite-ground-station communication can only last a certain period of time. The communication peers will keep changing.
4. Satellite physical resource is limited.
Due to the weight, complexity and cost constraint, the physical resource on a satellite, such as power supply, memory, link speed, are limited. It cannot be compared with the similar device on ground. The design and technology used should consider these factors, and take the appropriate approach if possible.

The requirements of satellite-ground-station communication are:

R1. The bi-directional communication capability
Both satellites and ground stations have the bi-directional communication capability
R2. The identifier for satellites and ground stations
Satellites and ground stations should have Ethernet and/or IP address configured for the device and each link. More detailed address configuration can be seen in each solution.
R3. The capability to decide where the IP packet is forwarded to.
In order to send Internet traffic or IP date to destination correctly, satellites and ground station must have Ethernet hub or switching or IP routing capability. More detailed capability can be seen in each solution.
R4. The protocol to establish the satellite-ground-station communication.
For security and management purpose, the satellite-ground-station communication is only allowed after both sides agree through a protocol. The protocol should be able to establish a secured channel for the communication when a new communication peer comes up. Each ground station should be able to establish multiple channels to communicate with multiple satellites. Similarly, each satellite should be able to establish multiple channels to communicate to multiple ground stations.
R5. The protocol to discover the state of communication peer.
The discover protocol is needed to detect the state of communication peer such as peer's identity, the state of the peer and other info of the peer. The protocol must be running securely without leaking the discovered info.
R6. The internet data packet is forwarded securely.
When satellite or ground station is sending the IP packet to its peer, the packet must be relayed securely without leaking the user data.
R7. The internet data packet is processed efficiently on satellite
Due to the resource constraint on a satellite, the packet may need more efficient mechanism to be processed on satellite. The process on satellite should be very minimal and offloaded to ground as much as possible.

7.2. Satellite Relay

One of the reason to use satellite constellation for internet access is it can provide shorter latency than using the fiber cable underground. But using ISL for inter-satellite communication is the premise for such benefit in latency. Since the ISL is still not mature and adopted commercially, satellite relay is a only choice currently for satellite constellation used for internet access. In [UCL-Mark-Handley], detailed simulations have demonstrated better latency than fiber network by satellite relay even the ISL is not present.

7.2.1. One Satellite Relay

One satellite relay is the simplest method for satellite constellation to provide Internet service. By this method, IP traffic will be relayed by one satellite to reach the DGS and go to Internet.

The solution option and associated requirements are:

S1. The satellite only does L1 relay or the physical signal process.

For this solution, a satellite only receives physical signal, amplify it and broadcast to ground stations. It has no further process for packet, such as L2 packet compositing and processing, etc. All packet level work is done only at ground station. The requirements for the solution are:

R1-1. SGS and BGS are configured as IP routing node. Routing protocol is running in SGS and BGS
SGS and BGS is a IP peer for a routing protocol (IGP or BGP). SGS will send internet traffic to DGS as next hop through satellite uplink and downlink.
R1-2. DGS must be connected with Internet.
DGS can process received packet from satellite and forward the packet to the destination in Internet.

In addition to the above requirements, following problem should be solved:

P1-1. IP continuity between two ground stations
This problem is that two ground-stations are connected by one satellite relay. Since the satellite is moving, the IP continuity between ground stations is interrupted by satellite changing periodically. Even though this is not killing problem from the view point that IP service traditionally is only a best effort service, it will benefit the service if the problem can be solved. Different approaches may exist, such as using hands off protocols, multipath solutions, etc.

S2. The satellite does the L2 relay or L2 packet process.

For this solution, IP packet is passing through individual satellite as an L2 capable device. Unlike in the solution S1, satellite knows which ground station it should send based on packet's destination MAC address after L2 processing. The advantage of this solution over S1 is it can use narrower beam to communicate with DGS and get higher bandwidth and better security. The requirements for the solution are:

R2-1. Satellite must have L2 bridge or switch capability
In order to forward packet to properly, satellite should run some L2 process such as MAC learning, MAC switching. The protocol running on satellite must consider the fast movement of satellite and its impact to protocol convergence, timer configuration, table refreshment, etc.
R2-2. same as R1-1 in S1
R2-3. same as R1-2 in S1

In addition to the above requirements, the problem P1-1 for S1 should also apply.

7.2.2. Multiple Satellite Relay

For this method, packet from SGS will be relayed through multiple intermediate satellites and ground station until reaching a DGS.

This is more complicated than one satellite relay described in Section 7.2.1.

One general solution is to configure both satellites and ground-stations as IP routing nodes, proper routing protocols are running in this network. The routing protocol will dynamically determine forwarding path. The obvious challenge for this solution is that all links between satellite and ground station are not static, according to the analysis in Section 5.1, the life time of each link may last only couple of minutes. This will result in very quick and constant topology changes in both link state and IP adjacency, it will cause the distributed routing algorithms may never converge. So this solution is not feasible.

Another plausible solution is to specify path statically. The path is composed of a serials of intermediate ground stations plus SGS and DGS. This idea will make ground stations static and leave the satellites dynamic. It will reduce the fluctuation of network path, thus provide more steady service. One variant for the solution is whether the intermediate ground station are connected to Internet. Separated discussion is as below:

S1. Manual configuring routing path and table

For this solution, the intermediate ground stations and DGS are specified and configured manually during the stage of network planning and provisioning. Following requirements apply:

R1-1. Specify a path from SGS to DGS via a list of intermediate ground stations.
The specified DGS must be connected with internet. Other specified intermediate ground stations does not have to
R1-2. All Ground stations are configured as IP routing node.
Static routing table on all ground stations must be pre-configured, the next hop of routes to Internet destination in any ground station is configured to going through uplink of satellite to the next ground station until reaching the DGS.
R1-3. All Satellites are configured as either L1 relay or L2 relay.
The Satellite can be configured as L1 relay or L2 relay described in S1 and S2 respectively in Section 7.2.1

In addition to the above requirements, the problem P1-1 in Section 7.2.1 should also apply.

S2. Automatic decision by routing protocol.

This solution is only feasible after the IP continuity problem (P1-1 in Section 7.2.1) is solved. Following requirements apply:

R2-1. All Ground stations are configured as IP routing node. Proper routing protocols are configured as well.
The satellite link cost is configured to be lower than the ground link. In such a way, the next hop of routes for the IP forwarding to Internet destination in any ground station will be always going through the uplink of satellite to the next ground station until reaching the DGS.
R2-2. All Satellites are configured as either L1 relay or L2 relay.
The Satellite can be configured as L1 relay or L2 relay described in S1 and S2 respectively in Section 7.2.1

In addition to the above requirements, the problem P1-1 in Section 7.2.1 should also apply.

7.3. Satellite Networking

In the draft, satellite Network is defined as a network that satellites are inter-connected by inter-satellite links (ISL). One of the major difference of satellite network with the other type of network on ground (telephone, fiber, etc.) is its topology and links are not stationary, Some new issues have to be considered and solved. Follows are the factors that impact the satellite networking.

7.3.1. L2 or L3 network

The 1st question to answer is should the satellite network be configured as L2 or L3 network? As analyzed in Section 4.2 and Section 4.3, since there are couple of hundred or over ten thousands satellites in the a network, L2 network is not a good choice, instead, L3 or IP network is more appropriate for such scale of network.

If we assume the orbit is circular and ignore other trivial factors, the satellite speed is approximately determined by the orbit altitude as described in the Section 5.1. The satellite orbit can determine if the dynamic position of two satellites is within the range of the inter-satellite communication. That is 2000km for laser communication [Laser-communication-range] by Inter Satellite Laser Link (ISLL).

When two satellites' orbit planes belong to the same group, or two orbit planes share the same altitude and inclination, the relative position of two satellite are relatively stationary, and the inter-satellite communication is steady.

But when two satellites' orbit planes belong to the different group, or two orbit planes have different altitude, the relative position of two satellite are unstable and the inter-satellite communication is not steady. As described in Section 5.2, The life of communication for two satellites depends on the following parameters of two satellites:

  1. The speed vectors.
  2. The altitude difference
  3. The intersection angle

From the examples shown in Table 3 to Table 6, we can see that the life time of inter-satellite communication for the different group of orbit planes are from couple of hundred seconds to about 18 hours. This fact will impact the routing technologies used for satellite network and will be discussed in Section 7.3.3.

7.3.3. Problems for Traditional Routing Technologies

When the satellite network is integrated with Internet by traditional routing technologies, following provisioning and configuration (see Figure 11) will apply:

  1. The ground stations connected to local network and internet are treated as PE router for satellite network (called PE_GS1 and PE_GS2 in the following context), and all satellites are treated as P router.
  2. All satellites in the network and ground stations are configured to run IGP.
  3. The eBGP is configured between PE_GS and its peered network's PE or CE.

The work on PE_GS1 are:

  • 1) The local network routes are received at PE_GS1 from CE by eBGP. The routes are redistributed to IGP and then IGP flood them to all satellites. (Other more efficient methods, such as iBGP or BGP reflector are hard to be used, since the satellite is moving and there is no easy way to configure a full meshed iBGP session for all satellites, or configure one satellite as BGP reflector in satellite network.)
  • 2) The internet routes are redistributed from IGP to eBGP running on PE_GS1, and eBGP will advertise them to CE.

The work on PE_GS2 are:

  • 1) The Internet routes are received at PE_GS2 from PE by eBGP. The routes are redistributed to IGP and then IGP flood them to all satellites. (Similar as in PE_GS1, Other more efficient methods, such as iBGP or BGP reflector cannot be used.)
  • 2) The local network routes are redistributed from IGP to eBGP running on PE_GS2, and eBGP will advertise them to Internet.
  /--------\             S1---S2----S3----\               /------\
 /          \            /    IGP domain   \             /        \
+ Local net CE--eBGP--PE_GS1---S4---S5---PE_GS2--eBGP--PE Internet +
 \          /            \                 /             \        /
  \--------/              \---S6---S7---S8/               \------/
Figure 11

Local access Internet through inter-satellite-networking

On PE-GS1, due to the fact that IGP link between PE_GS1 and satellite is not static, this will lead to following routing activity:

  1. When one satellite is connecting with PE_GS1, the satellite and PE_GS1 form a IGP adjacency. IGP starts to exchange the link state update.
  2. The local network routes received by eBGP in PE_GS1 from CE are redistributed to IGP, and IGP starts to flood link state update to all satellites.
  3. Meanwhile, the Internet routes learnt from IGP in PE_GS1 will be redistributed to eBGP. eBGP starts to advertise to CE.
  4. Every satellite will update its routing table (RIB) and forwarding table (FIB) after IGP finishes the SPF algorithm.
  5. When the satellite is disconnecting with PE-GS1, the IGP adjacency between satellite and PE_GS1 is gone. IGP starts to exchange the link state update.
  6. The routes of local network and satellite network that were redistributed to IGP in step 2 will be withdrawn, and IGP starts to flood link state update to all satellites.
  7. Meanwhile, the Internet routes previously redistributed to eBGP in step 3 will also be withdrawn. eBGP starts to advertise route withdraw to CE.
  8. Every satellite will update its routing table (RIB) and forwarding table (FIB) after the SPF algorithm.

Similarly on PE_GS2, due to the fact that IGP link between PE_GS2 and satellite is not static, this will lead to following routing activity:

  1. When one satellite is connecting with PE_GS2, the satellite and PE_GS2 form a IGP adjacency. IGP starts to exchange the link state update.
  2. The Internet routes previously received by eBGP in PE_GS2 from PE are redistributed to IGP, IGP starts to flood the new link state update to all satellites.
  3. Meanwhile, the routes of local network and satellite network learnt from IGP in PE_GS2 will be redistributed to eBGP. eBGP starts to advertise to Internet peer PE.
  4. Every satellite will update its routing table (RIB) and forwarding table (FIB) after IGP finishes the SPF algorithm.
  5. When the satellite is disconnecting with PE-GS2, the IGP adjacency between satellite and PE_GS2 is gone. IGP starts to exchange the link state update.
  6. The internet routes previously redistributed to IGP in step 2 will be withdrawn, and IGP starts to flood link state update to all satellites
  7. Meanwhile, the routes of local network and satellite network previously redistributed to eBGP in step 3 will also be withdrawn. eBGP starts to advertise route withdraw to PE.
  8. Every satellite will update its routing table (RIB) and forwarding table (FIB) after the SPF algorithm.

For the analysis of detailed events above, the estimated time interval between event 1 and 5 for PE_GS1 and PE_GS2 can use the analysis in Section 5.1. For example, it is about 398s for LEO and 103s for VLEO. Within this time interval, the satellite network including all satellites and two ground stations must finish the works from 1 to 4 for PE_GS1 and PE_GS2. The normal internet IPv6 and IPv4 BGP routes size are about 850k v4 routes + 100K v6 routes [BGP-Table-Size]. There are couple critical problems associated with the events:

P1. Frequent IGP flooding for the internet routes
Whenever the IGP adjacency changes (step 1 and 5 for PE_GS2), it will trigger the massive IGP flooding for the link state update for a massive internet routes learnt from eBGP. This will result in the IGP re-convergency, RIB and FIP update.
P2. Frequent BGP advertisement for the internet routes
Whenever the IGP adjacency changes (step 3 and 7 for PE_GS1), it will trigger the massive BGP advertisement for the internet routes learnt from IGP. This will result in the BGP re-convergency, RIB and FIB update. BGP convergency time is longer than IGP. The document [BGP-Converge-Time1] has shown that the BGP convergence time varies from 50sec to couple of hundred seconds. The analysis [BGP-Converge-Time2] indicated that per entry update takes about 150us, and it takes o(75s) for 500k routes, or o(150s) for 1M routes.
P3. More frequent IGP flooding and BGP update in whole satellite network
To provide the global coverage, a satellite constellation will have many ground stations deployed. For example, StarLink has applied for the license for up to one million ground stations [StarLink-Ground-Station-Fcc], in which, more than 50 gateway ground stations (equivalent to the PE_GS2) have been registered [SpaceX-Ground-Station-Fcc] and deployed in U.S. [StarLink-GW-GS-map]. It is expected that the gateway ground station will grow quickly to couple of thousands [Tech-Comparison-LEOs]. This means almost each satellite in the satellite network would have a ground station connected. , Due to the fact that all satellites are moving, many IGP adjacency changes may occur in a shorter period of time described in Section 5.1, and result in the problem P1 and P2 constantly occur.
P4. Service is not steady
Due to the problems P1 to P3, the service provide of satellite constellation is hard to provide a steady service for broadband service by using inter-satellite network and traditional routing technologies.

As a summary, the traditional routing technology is problematic for large scale inter-satellite networking for Internet. Enhancements on traditional technologies, or new technologies are expected to solve the specific issues associated with satellite networking.

8. IANA Considerations

This memo includes no request to IANA.

9. Contributors

10. Acknowledgements

11. References

11.1. Normative References

[RFC4271]
Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC2328]
Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC7142]
Shand, M. and L. Ginsberg, "Reclassification of RFC 1142 to Historic", RFC 7142, DOI 10.17487/RFC7142, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7142>.
[RFC2453]
Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2", STD 56, RFC 2453, DOI 10.17487/RFC2453, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2453>.
[RFC7868]
Savage, D., Ng, J., Moore, S., Slice, D., Paluch, P., and R. White, "Cisco's Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP)", RFC 7868, DOI 10.17487/RFC7868, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7868>.

11.2. Informative References

[KeplerianElement]
"Keplerian elements", <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements>.
[GEO-Coverage]
"Coverage of a geostationary satellite at Earth", <https://www.planetary.org/space-images/coverage-of-a-geostationary>.
[Nttdocomo-6G]
"NTTDPCOM 6G White Paper", <https://www.nttdocomo.co.jp/english/binary/pdf/corporate/technology/whitepaper_6g/DOCOMO_6G_White_PaperEN_20200124.pdf>.
[ITU-6G]
"ITU 6G vision", <https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/opb/itujnl/S-ITUJNL-JFETF.V1I1-2020-P09-PDF-E.pdf>.
[Surrey-6G]
"Surrey 6G vision", <https://www.surrey.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2020-11/6g-wireless-a-new-strategic-vision-paper.pdf>.
[OSI-Model]
"OSI Model", <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model>.
"Star Link", <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink>.
[China-constellation]
"China Constellation", <https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/DisplayPublication/23706>.
[ESA-HydRON]
"HydRON: Fiber in the sky", <https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2021/04/HydRON_Fibre_in_the_sky>.
[SpaceX-Non-GEO]
"FCC report: SPACEX V-BAND NON-GEOSTATIONARY SATELLITE SYSTEM", <https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT-LOA-20170301-00027/1190019.pdf>.
[Satellite-coverage]
Alan R.Washburn, Department of Operations Research, Naval Postgraduate School, "Earth Coverage by Satellites in Circular Orbit", <https://faculty.nps.edu/awashburn/Files/Notes/EARTHCOV.pdf>.
[Microwave-vs-Laser-communication]
International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology (IJRASET), "Comparison of Microwave and Optical Wireless Inter-Satellite Links", <https://www.ijraset.com/fileserve.php?FID=7815>.
[Laser-communication-range]
"Interferometric optical communications can potentially lead to robust, secure, and naturally encrypted long-distance laser communications in space by taking advantage of the underlying physics of quantum entanglement.", <https://www.laserfocusworld.com/optics/article/16551652/interferometry-quantum-entanglement-physics-secures-spacetospace-interferometric-communications>.
[BGP-Table-Size]
"BGP in 2020 - BGP table", <https://blog.apnic.net/2021/01/05/bgp-in-2020-the-bgp-table/>.
[BGP-Converge-Time1]
"BGP in 2020 - BGP Update Churn", <https://labs.apnic.net/?p=1397>.
[BGP-Converge-Time2]
"Bringing SDN to the Internet, one exchange point at the time", <https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall14/cos561/docs/SDX.pdf>.
"APPLICATION FOR BLANKET LICENSED EARTH STATIONS", <https://fcc.report/IBFS/SES-LIC-INTR2019-00217/1616678>.
[SpaceX-Ground-Station-Fcc]
"List of SpaceX applications for ground stations", <https://fcc.report/IBFS/Company/Space-Exploration-Technologies-Corp-SpaceX>.
[Tech-Comparison-LEOs]
"A Technical Comparison of Three Low Earth Orbit Satellite Constellation Systems to Provide Global Broadband", <http://www.mit.edu/~portillo/files/Comparison-LEO-IAC-2018-slides.pdf>.
"StarLink gateway ground station map", <https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1H1x8jZs8vfjy60TvKgpbYs_grargieVw>.
[UCL-Mark-Handley]
"Using ground relays for low-latency wide-area routing in megaconstellations", <https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10090242/1/hotnets-ucl.pdf>.

Appendix A. Change Log

Authors' Addresses

Lin Han (editor)
Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
2330 Central Expy
Santa Clara, CA 95050,
United States of America
Richard Li
Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
2330 Central Expy
Santa Clara, CA 95050,
United States of America