Starlink

[BigBlue1]

Can you use some type of VPN to avoid the issues you mention? I connect to my employer over VPN through Starlink and the help desk can remote into my computer just fine. A VPN between you and the other end of your connection may eliminate the NAT situation.

Rob

 

[plowhog]

Can you use some type of VPN to avoid the issues you mention?

I considered a VPN solution but to be accessible it must be always-on. And if it is always-on it is consuming bandwidth, which is metered and limited on a satellite system like HughesNet. So I would be using some amount of my monthly data allowance 100% of the time even if I only occasionally connected remotely.

Back when I researched VPN systems, I had a difficult time determining their underlying technology-- i.e. did the VPN client just reach out to it's server at a specific IP address? If so, that would fail under the unique HughesNet arrangement. Under HughesNet, you can know the IP of the remote location and still not be able to get there.

Only a VPN where each side connected to the middle would work. I believe that might be sort of an odd beast in the VPN world. Just like HughesNet is something of an odd beast itself.

 

[Fixastuff]

I considered a VPN solution but to be accessible it must be always-on. And if it is always-on it is consuming bandwidth, which is metered and limited on a satellite system like HughesNet. So I would be using some amount of my monthly data allowance 100% of the time even if I only occasionally connected remotely.

Back when I researched VPN systems, I had a difficult time determining their underlying technology-- i.e. did the VPN client just reach out to it's server at a specific IP address? If so, that would fail under the unique HughesNet arrangement. Under HughesNet, you can know the IP of the remote location and still not be able to get there.

Only a VPN where each side connected to the middle would work. I believe that might be sort of an odd beast in the VPN world. Just like HughesNet is something of an odd beast itself.

I have no idea what your talking about but the VPN: Private Internet Access (PIA) worked for me when I had viasat and hugesnet (they were crap btw).

 

[plowhog]

I have no idea what your talking about but the VPN: Private Internet Access (PIA) worked for me ...

Then you probably won't be able to help. ViaSat and HughesNet are different systems. Many remote access programs work with Viasat (Exede.) Not so with HughesNet.

My inquiry is what is possible, now, using Starlink.

BTW, here was a response to someone trying to remotely view a camera with HughesNet:

Re: Remote access of security cameras - REVISITED​

Basically, this is not possible on Gen5 as it currently stands. Configuring the IPv4 inbound port forwards required for a conventional DVR (Hikvision, etc.) will not work due to the CGN layer added to the Gen5 network. Your router's "public" IP is not a public Internet routable IP address.

Hughes does assign a public, routable, IPv6 block to your LAN, but it changes so often that it's useless. Dynamic DNS infrastructure for IPv6 isn't really much of a thing because customer issued IPv6 blocks aren't supposed to change. We're kind of in a pickle until (if ever) Hughes prevents the customer IPv6 blocks from changing.

 

[Fixastuff]

Then you probably won't be able to help. ViaSat and HughesNet are different systems. Many remote access programs work with Viasat (Exede.) Not so with HughesNet.

My inquiry is what is possible, now, using Starlink.

I have had and used it with HugesNet and Viasat and Starlink. It worked for my purposes but they are different that yours so I may be wrong.

 

[plowhog]

I have had and used it with HugesNet and Viasat and Starlink. It worked for my purposes but they are different that yours so I may be wrong.

I suspect maybe two things could have been different. Their Gen 5 system works differently from earlier versions. And their business accounts do permit static IP addresses. However, upgrading to a business account is more costly than using TeamViewer.

Anyway, I ordered Starlink long ago and am looking forward to faster speeds no matter .. anything else. Just hoping the remote access won't be difficult as it is now.

 

[BigBlue1]

Perhaps check out the Starlink section on Reddit. Lots more likely to have someone who can answer the question than here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/n26mcs

Rob

 

[plowhog]

Perhaps check out the Starlink section on Reddit.

I will look at that.

And fixastuff just mentioned he is successfully running his similar product right now on Starlink, so that is helpful as well.

 

[dmccarty]

Now to make it affordable....

$100 a month is affordable to us. We are paying $90 for a cell based internet service AND another $50-75 from CenturyStink.

The irony is that we kept the cell service and CenturyStink to make sure the cell service works, and it does, but we found having the back up, even with the slow DSL, worth keeping, and we might keep DSL, even after Starlink arrives. We would much rather keep the cell solution so we might have to find a cheaper provider.

Later,
Dan

 

[ponytug]

$100 a month is affordable to us. We are paying $90 for a cell based internet service AND another $50-75 from CenturyStink.

The irony is that we kept the cell service and CenturyStink to make sure the cell service works, and it does, but we found having the back up, even with the slow DSL, worth keeping, and we might keep DSL, even after Starlink arrives. We would much rather keep the cell solution so we might have to find a cheaper provider.

Later,
Dan

Given that Starlink is new, and space based, I plan on keeping a redundant service. I would recommend that anyone experiencing dropouts on Starlink consider a router with redundancy to seamless shift data to whatever link is up, to help ride through any glitches.

With our DSL provider, they are no longer offering dsl, so if we cancel we can never reconsider.


All the best,

Peter