Skip to main content

Can LEO Satellites Enhance the Resilience of Internet to Multi-hazard Risks?

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Passive and Active Measurement (PAM 2024)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14538))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 97 Accesses

Abstract

Climate change-induced and naturally-occurring multi-hazard risks (e.g., Cascadia megathrust earthquake followed by tsunamis in the U.S. Pacific Northwest or PNW) threaten humanity and society, in general, and critical Internet infrastructures, in particular. While mitigating the impacts of these hazards, in isolation, on terrestrial infrastructures has been the focus of prior efforts, we lack an in-depth understanding of infrastructure hardening efforts using non-terrestrial deployments such as low earth orbit or LEO satellites in the face of multi-hazard risks.

The main goal of this work is to evaluate whether LEO satellites can bolster the resilience of Internet infrastructure in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) against multi-hazard risks (Although we use the PNW as a demonstrative case in this work, we note that the solution can be applied to various geographic regions, at different granularities (e.g., city vs. state), and for a range of single- or multi-hazard risk scenarios.). To this end, we have developed a first-of-its-kind simulator called MAZE to understand the impacts that multi-hazard risks, each of which combined or in isolation, pose to wired and wireless infrastructures in the PNW. Using MAZE, we address two key challenges faced by first responders today: (1) navigating the cost vs. performance trade-offs in the hybrid routing of traffic between terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks during disasters, and (2) comparing the efficacy of using LEO satellites against a terrestrial risk-aware routing strategy (ShakeNet) and a global satellite network (BGAN) for emergency communication during multi-hazard risks. Our assessments show that LEO satellites offer two orders of magnitude latency improvement and 100 s of thousands of dollars in saving, all while maintaining network connectivity in the face of multi-hazard risks. To demonstrate the practicality and versatility of MAZE, we perform two case studies including testing a traffic prioritization scheme for LEO satellites and assessing the impacts of cascading risk on network infrastructures along the U.S. west coast.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this context, the “impact” of infrastructure damage is characterized by complete failures resulting in the absence of any service.

  2. 2.

    Similar to other terrestrial infrastructures (e.g., fiber-optic cables), ground stations are susceptible to availability and resiliency issues resulting from multi-hazard risks.

  3. 3.

    In this work, we consider latency as the key performance metric because it translates directly to response times of first responders during a disaster. In future work, we plan to consider other metrics such as path congestion, throughput, among others.

References

  1. ArcGIS. https://www.arcgis.com

  2. Inmarsat BGAN Data Plans. https://satellitephonestore.com/bgan-service

  3. Inmarsat BGAN M2M. https://www.inmarsat.com/en/solutions-services/enterprise/services/bgan-m2m.html

  4. Satellite Configurations Used in MAZE. https://gitlab.com/onrg/maze/-/raw/main/rtt_simulator/constellation_config.py

  5. StarLink for Land Mobility. https://www.starlink.com/business/mobility

  6. The Oregon Resilience Plan - Cascadia: Oregon’s Greatest Natural Threat. https://www.oregon.gov/oem/Documents/01_ORP_Cascadia.pdf

  7. Fourth National Climate Assessment: Volume II, Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States. Report-in-brief. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  8. State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates Oregon, May 2021. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_or.htm

  9. United states census bureau, county population: 2020–2021 (2021). https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-counties-total.html

  10. Allan, J., Zhang, J., O’brien, F., Gabel, L.: Columbia river tsunami modeling: toward improved maritime planning response, December 2018

    Google Scholar 

  11. Anderson, S., Barford, C., Barford, P.: Five alarms: assessing the vulnerability of us cellular communication infrastructure to wildfires. In: Proceedings of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC 2020, New York, NY, USA, pp. 162–175. Association for Computing Machinery (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Burleigh, S., Scott, K.: Interplanetary Overlay Network, June 2020. https://www.inmarsatgov.com/firstnet/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/SATCOM-overview-firstnet.pdf

  13. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2926/can-climate-affect-earthquakes-or-are-the-connections-shaky/

  14. Chaudhry, A.U., Yanikomeroglu, H.: Optical wireless satellite networks versus optical fiber terrestrial networks: the latency perspective. In: Nguyen, H., Le, L., Yahampath, P., Mohamed, E.B. (eds.) 30th Biennial Symposium on Communications 2021. Signals and Communication Technology, pp. 225–234. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06947-5_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Cho, K., Pelsser, C., Bush, R., Won, Y.: The Japan earthquake: the impact on traffic and routing observed by a local ISP. In: Proceedings of the Special Workshop on Internet and Disasters, pp. 1–8 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Durairajan, R., Barford, C., Barford, P.: Lights out: climate change risk to internet infrastructure. In: Proceedings of Applied Networking Research Workshop (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Eriksson, B., Durairajan, R., Barford, P.: Riskroute: a framework for mitigating network outage threats. In: Proceedings of the Ninth ACM Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies, pp. 405–416 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  18. FirstNet: Satellite Solutions for FirstNet, March 2020. https://www.inmarsatgov.com/firstnet/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/SATCOM-overview-firstnet.pdf

  19. Fomon, J.: Here’s How Fast Starlink Has Gotten Over the Past Year, June 2022. https://www.ookla.com/articles/starlink-hughesnet-viasat-performance-q1-2022

  20. Franchi, A., Howell, A., Sengupta, J.: Broadband mobile via satellite: inmarsat BGAN. In: IEE Seminar on Broadband Satellite: The Critical Success Factors - Technology, Services and Markets (Ref. No. 2000/067), pp. 23/1–23/7 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gallagher, J.C.: The first responder network (firstnet) and next-generation communications for public safety: issues for congress (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Garcia, J., Sundberg, S., Caso, G., Brunstrom, A.: Multi-timescale evaluation of starlink throughput. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM Workshop on LEO Networking and Communication, pp. 31–36 (2023)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gensini, V.A., Brooks, H.E.: Spatial trends in united states tornado frequency. NPJ Clim. Atmos. Sci. 1(1) (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Given, D.D., et al.: Revised technical implementation plan for the shakealert system-an earthquake early warning system for the west coast of the united states. Technical report, US Geological Survey (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Han, C.: The BeiDou navigation satellite system. In: 2014 XXXIth URSI General Assembly and Scientific Symposium (URSI GASS), pp. 1–3 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  26. King County Public Health: Division of emergency medical services 2021 annual report, September 2021. https://kingcounty.gov/depts/health/emergency-medical-services/~/media/depts/health/emergency-medical-services/documents/reports/2021-Annual-Report.ashx

  27. Izhikevich, L., Tran, M., Izhikevich, K., Akiwate, G., Durumeric, Z.: Democratizing LEO Satellite Network Measurement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07469 (2023)

  28. Jackson, D.: FirstNet Authority seeks input on potential solutions to off-network challenges. Urgent Communications (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jyothi, S.A.: Solar superstorms: planning for an internet apocalypse. In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGCOMM 2021 Conference, pp. 692–704 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kassem, M.M., Raman, A., Perino, D., Sastry, N.: A browser-side view of starlink connectivity. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Internet Measurement Conference, pp. 151–158 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kassing, S., Bhattacherjee, D., Águas, A.B., Saethre, J.E., Singla, A.: Exploring the “internet from space” with hypatia. In: Proceedings of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC 2020, New York, NY, USA, pp. 214–229. Association for Computing Machinery (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kimball, C.: How much bandwidth is needed for VoIP. https://www.avoxi.com/blog/how-much-bandwidth-is-needed-for-voip/

  33. Lai, Z., et al.: \(\{\)StarryNet\(\}\): empowering researchers to evaluate futuristic integrated space and terrestrial networks. In: 20th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 2023), pp. 1309–1324 (2023)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Li, B., et al.: A system of power emergency communication system based BDS and LEO satellite. In: 2021 Computing, Communications and IoT Applications (ComComAp), pp. 286–291 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mayer, J., Sahakian, V., Hooft, E., Toomey, D., Durairajan, R.: On the resilience of internet infrastructures in pacific northwest to earthquakes (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Michel, F., Trevisan, M., Giordano, D., Bonaventure, O.: A first look at starlink performance. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Internet Measurement Conference, pp. 130–136 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Northwest Interagency Coordination Center: Northwest fire locations. https://gacc.nifc.gov/nwcc/information/firemap.aspx

  38. Bureau of Labor Management: Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics of EMTs (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bureau of Labor Management: Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics of Firefighters (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Bureau of Labor Management: Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics of Paramedics (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Washington State Department of Natural Resources: Tsunami hazard maps (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  42. National Association of State Budget Officers: State Expenditure Report (2021). https://www.nasbo.org/reports-data/state-expenditure-report

  43. Padmanabhan, R., Schulman, A., Levin, D., Spring, N.: Residential links under the weather. In: Proceedings of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication, pp. 145–158 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Portland Fire & Rescue: FAQs (2021). https://www.portlandoregon.gov/fire/article/378460

  45. Schulman, A., Spring, N.: Pingin’ in the rain. In: ACM IMC, November 2011

    Google Scholar 

  46. SkyBrokers: Amazon Kuiper Systems, LLC (2022). https://sky-brokers.com/supplier/amazon-kuiper-systems-llc/

  47. Smith, K., et al.: Integrated multi-hazard regional networks: earthquake warning/response, wildfire detection/response, and extreme weather tracking. Appl. Geol. Calif. Assoc. Environ. Eng. Geol. (AEG) Spec. Publ. (26), 599–612 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Starlink: Starlink kit. https://www.starlink.com

  49. Starlink: World’s most advanced broadband internet system (2021). https://www.starlink.com/satellites

  50. Telesat: Telesat Lightspeed LEO Network, November 2021. https://www.telesat.com/leo-satellites/

  51. Verizon: First responder benefits program (2020). https://www.verizon.com/business/solutions/public-sector/public-safety/programs/first-responder-benefits/

  52. Zhou, J., Ye, X., Pan, Y., Xiao, F., Sun, L.: Dynamic channel reservation scheme based on priorities in LEO satellite systems. J. Syst. Eng. Electron. 26(1), 1–9 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the anonymous reviewers and our shepherd, Nitinder Mohan, for their insightful feedback. This work is supported by the Internet Society (ISOC) Foundation. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of ISOC.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramakrishnan Durairajan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Stevens, A., Iradukunda, B., Bailey, B., Durairajan, R. (2024). Can LEO Satellites Enhance the Resilience of Internet to Multi-hazard Risks?. In: Richter, P., Bajpai, V., Carisimo, E. (eds) Passive and Active Measurement. PAM 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14538. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56252-5_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56252-5_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-56251-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-56252-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics