How to modify Starlink Mini to run without the built-in WiFi router

A lot of this is pretty POC-y. Agree digital to analog to analog to digital is kinda inefficient, and in the abstract MAC to PHY (which is probably what you mean when you say MAC to MAC) with RGMII is probably better. My off the cuff guess is that it is likely the written-up interface is easier to access or requires less diving into internals. Not sure where the RGMII lines are, and depending on the design of the Starlink mini itself (I am ignorant of this) the lines might have been buried deeper and less accessible, who knows.

msgodel3• 1 year ago

Ethernet seems far easier to prototype with. There's almost no off the shelf stuff for talking to RGMII whereas Ethernet you can just plug into your laptop for testing. If it's two different teams building things it seems like it would be a lot easier to just agree on Ethernet as the interface and then delay integration testing or release earlier.

151553• 1 year ago

A $3 breakout PCB with an RGMII PHY and MagJack on it would solve this problem without resorting to analog communication.

numpad0• 1 year ago

RGMII is not some obscure competitor to Ethernet, but rather, Ethernet was designed to be a modular two-part design with "MAC" and "PHY" chips connected via "MII" interface. RGMII is simply the latest version of it.

Many Ethernet-supported SoCs still use various MII style interfaces because it makes more sense to outsource the physical layer to some external chip especially if not everyone is going to use Ethernet.

It's perhaps like the difference between using Thunderbolt vs raw PCIe. You technically shouldn't need Thunderbolt if you're just permanently connecting two things inside a same machine.

Is it smarter to do it proper and make it silicon efficient than just shipping the darn thing ASAP? idk. We'll see.

CamperBob23• 1 year ago

I'm not sure I understand the entire point of the exercise. There's already an RJ45 jack on the Mini, so no need to hack the unit to get access to an Ethernet PHY. And the WiFi router can be turned off via the setup page.

Did they remove support for the Ethernet jack on the Minis available in Ukraine? It looks like it's still present on the WiFi board, next to the power jack.

closewith• 1 year ago

You might imagine some use cases where mass is a critical concern.

dogben• 1 year ago

They may want to make absolutly sure no wifi signal emit from the device. Turning it off in the setup page is definitely not enough.

The wifi chip may emit signal during boot. The device may get accidentally reset in the field. SpaceX may push an update that messes with the settings.

j16sdiz• 1 year ago

it is not just the wifi. its the router.

jpm_sd• 1 year ago

RGMII isn't really designed to go board-to-board, fairly high data rates, and ideally all of the signals should be delay matched. That gets a bit trickier when there are two boards involved. Also I would expect EMI/EMC issues.

I know people do that sort of thing for evaluation kits, but it doesn't seem like a good idea for production.

05• 1 year ago

Sure, then you get to write an MDIO emulator so that it actually detects link and since it's a proprietary system you can't exactly comment out the SMI code.. fun!

dlcarrier• 1 year ago

That connector is way cheaper than something that could carry an RGMII signal without major reflections. It's probably cheaper in the end to have the extra silicon than a better connector, and I don't think you need the magnetics if you don't need isolation.

wildzzz2• 1 year ago

It could just be that using Ethernet allows for more flexibility in what is connected to that board-to-board connector. In this instance, it's a wifi router but a customer may instead want a bare port to connect to their existing infrastructure (just the modem). It also means you don't have to worry about which MII standard both boards use, they can be upgraded independent of each other. The physical interface for Ethernet remains the same whereas MII has different pin counts.

brcmthrowaway2• 1 year ago

What SoC does Starlink use? Broadcom?

inemesitaffia3• 1 year ago

MediaTek

b1122• 1 year ago

Hasn't Broadcom bought them yet? What an evil company.

leoh• 1 year ago

How did the author figure out the pin out for Ethernet? Wild stuff.

Also kudos for them using GRPC. Suggests that there are some competent folks around not rushing things.

chatmasta• 1 year ago

I’m confused by the end. He implies that the “disablement codes” (geoblock, speed violation, etc.) are enforced by the user terminal, meaning they could be circumvented?

The user terminal itself has no knowledge of service plans, countries, regional, or velocity restrictions – it simply follows commands received from the Starlink satellite

Surely this would be enforced at DHCP time? Or maybe not, since you could get an IP address then start going too fast… is this blog actually a ”wink wink nudge nudge” guide to bypassing Starlink policy restrictions?

kortilla2• 1 year ago

He’s saying the sat sends the code to the terminal because the terminal doesn’t even know it’s blocked. This is so you as a user can see why your internet isn’t working.

ahoka• 1 year ago

Probably it works like all other ISPs and terminal is in a VLAN?

sharpshadow2• 1 year ago

If they actually figured out which disablement codes can be tricked or circumvented, they wouldn’t share that. I guess it would all depend on how strict Starlink checks and enforces for unauthorised usage. For a US company operating on this scale I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s between very strict to just the basics or on demand.

A commentator here mentioned that Starlink also works in Russia, which it shouldn’t? Maybe some devices delivered to Ukraine can be used in Russia too.

cyberax• 1 year ago

Not all of Russia, but in Crimea and the occupied parts of Donbas and Luhansk. Apparently, also in some border regions, probably because Starlink hasn't bothered to precisely geofence the border.

rickdeckard• 1 year ago

It sounds more like a result-code shared to the terminal to inform it that i.e. "ACCOUNT_DISABLED - The Starlink account has been suspended or permanently disabled" or "UNLICENSED_COUNTRY – The terminal is located in a country where Starlink lacks regulatory approval."

I doubt that the decision to act upon that is left to the terminal instead of the Starlink network.

some_random• 1 year ago

That's not my impression at all, if the terminal does not maintain information on service plans or restrictions then it's maintained higher up. We don't have enough information from this blog post to know if the terminal could be configured to ignore limitations but I would expect just ignoring "disablementCode"s wouldn't be sufficient.

wildzzz2• 1 year ago

I'm not that familiar with Starlink but it looks like the normal process is to use an app that can read off error and diagnostic codes from the terminal. If you are bypassing the built-in router and just using the terminal as a modem connected to an SBC, you won't have a smartphone connected to see these errors. You could write up a script to check the error codes and respond accordingly.

Like if you have a Starlink terminal attached to a drone, it could automatically change its location if service is interrupted, like a UAV could fly higher if an obstruction is detected. Or if a geofence is inadvertently crossed and service is disrupted, it could turn off the Starlink terminal and then turn on a backup comms system. Essentially, you could use those disablement codes as a sensor.

purpleidea• 1 year ago

This was great. I wish Starlink actually provided a dish+modem service exactly like this and real IPv4 not CGNAT nonsense. I think they do for business plans which are much more expensive though.

kortilla2• 1 year ago

This is the name of the game in new ISPs. You can’t get v4 block purchases approved without a good address utilization plan. Giving a public IP to every residential customer doesn’t really pass muster anymore as a good use of v4 space.

dboreham• 1 year ago

You can tunnel through Starlink to get a public IP. Not 100% efficient due to MTU reduction and the extra hop to the tunnel end, but it works.

How to modify Starlink Mini to run without the built-in WiFi router

Related Stories