Campus Emergency Network Reliability Using LEO Satellite Backup Link: Evaluasi Keandalan Jaringan Darurat Kampus menggunakan Satelit LEO sebagai Tautan Cadangan

Michael Kader; Sumenge Tangkawarouw Godion Kaunang

doi:10.35793/jtek.v15i2.66109

Authors

Michael Kader Universitas Sam Ratulangi
Sumenge Tangkawarouw Godion Kaunang Universitas Sam Ratulangi

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35793/jtek.v15i2.66109

Keywords:

campus network, emergency network, failover, IQR, LEO satellite, p99, QoS, throughput

Abstract

Abstract — This paper evaluates Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite connectivity as an emergency backup to keep campus inter-site services available when fiber links fail. Using the UNSRAT-UB link as a case study, baseline fiber performance is compared with failover conditions that route traffic over LEO, including self-managed tunneling (SSTP and L2TP) and a provider-managed service. QoS was measured with ICMP ping for 3600 s at 1 Hz to obtain RTT, jitter, and packet loss, and throughput was measured with iPerf3 for 1800 s in bidirectional multi-stream mode. Robust statistics (p50/p90/p99 and median+IQR) plus CDF/boxplot visualizations were used to capture distribution shifts and tail behavior. Fiber shows stable service (RTT p50 31-35 ms, loss <1%, throughput p50 84-94 Mbps). Under failover, LEO preserves connectivity but increases latency and variability. In the self-managed case, SSTP exhibits extreme tail latency and potential throughput collapse, while L2TP yields more usable tail latency (RTT p99 median 192-209 ms) with much higher downlink throughput. Provider-managed LEO offers moderate latency but limited throughput (about 6-7 Mbps).

Key words— campus network; emergency network; failover; IQR; LEO satellite; p99; QoS; throughput.

Abstrak — Penelitian ini mengevaluasi satelit Low Earth Orbit (LEO) sebagai jalur cadangan/darurat untuk meningkatkan ketahanan jaringan kampus saat jalur terestrial mengalami gangguan. Studi kasus dilakukan pada interkoneksi antar-site Universitas Sam Ratulangi (UNSRAT) dan Universitas Brawijaya (UB) dengan membandingkan performa baseline fiber optik (FO) terhadap kondisi failover ketika trafik dipaksa melewati LEO. Pengukuran dilakukan menggunakan ICMP ping (3600 detik, 1 Hz) untuk memperoleh RTT, jitter, dan packet loss, serta iPerf3 (1800 detik) mode bidirectional multi-stream untuk mengukur throughput uplink/downlink. Analisis menggunakan statistik robust: kuantil p50/p90/p99 untuk metrik QoS dan p50+IQR untuk throughput, disertai visualisasi CDF dan boxplot untuk menangkap pergeseran distribusi dan perilaku ekor (tail). Hasil menunjukkan FO memberikan baseline stabil (RTT p50 ≈ 31–35 ms; loss < 1%; throughput p50 ≈ 84–94 Mbps). Pada kondisi failover, LEO mampu mempertahankan konektivitas namun latensi dan variabilitas meningkat. Pada skenario self-managed (S-2), SSTP menimbulkan tail latency yang sangat ekstrem dan throughput dapat turun sangat rendah pada beberapa sesi, sedangkan L2TP menghasilkan tail yang lebih “usable” (RTT p99 median ≈ 192–209 ms) dengan throughput downlink jauh lebih tinggi. Pada skenario provider-managed (S-3), latensi LEO moderat namun throughput terbatas sekitar 6–7 Mbps.

Kata kunci —failover; IQR; jaringan darurat; jaringan kampus; p99; QoS; satelit LEO; throughput.

References

[1] W. Townsley et al., “Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP),” RFC 2661, Aug. 1999. [Online]. Available: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2661. [Diakses: 13 Desember 2025].

[2] ESnet, “iperf3 Documentation,” iperf3 Project. [Online]. Available: https://software.es.net/iperf/. [Diakses: 13 Desember 2025].

[3] ITU-T, “E.800: Definitions of terms related to quality of service,” ITU-T Recommendation E.800, Sep. 2008. [Online]. Available: https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.800/en. [Diakses: 16 Desember 2025].

[4] F. Michel, M. Trevisan, D. Giordano, and O. Bonaventure, “A First Look at Starlink Performance,” in Proc. ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC), 2022.

[5] J. Postel, “Internet Control Message Protocol,” RFC 792, Sep. 1981. [Online]. Available: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc792. [Diakses: 16 Desember 2025].

[6] G. Malkin, “Traceroute Using an IP Option,” RFC 1393, Jan. 1993. [Online]. Available: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1393. [Diakses: 13 Desember 2025].

[7] MikroTik, “SSTP,” MikroTik RouterOS Documentation. [Online]. Available: https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/spaces/ROS/pages/2031645/SSTP. [Diakses: 13 Desember 2025].

[8] NIST/SEMATECH, “Box Plot,” NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods. [Online]. Available: https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/boxplot.htm. [Diakses: 16 Desember 2025].

[9] J. Mogul and S. Deering, “Path MTU Discovery,” RFC 1191, Nov. 1990. [Online]. Available: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1191. [Diakses: 13 Desember 2025].

[10] Q. Wang, W. Li, Z. Yu, Q. Abbasi, M. Imran, S. Ansari, Y. Sambo, L. Wu, Q. Li, and T. Zhu, “An overview of emergency communication networks,” Remote Sens., vol. 15, no. 6, p. 1595, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.3390/rs15061595.

[11] A. Carreras-Coch, J. Navarro, C. Sans, and A. Zaballos, “Communication technology in emergency situation,” Electronics, vol. 11, no. 7, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.3390/electronics11071155.

[12] B. Haq, M. A. Jamshed, and A. Nauman, “Integrated terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks: An overview,” in Integrated Terrestrial and Non-Terrestrial Networks. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2025, pp. 1-25, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-63705-6_1.

[13] W. Jiang, Y. Zhan, X. Xiao, and G. Sha, “Network simulators for satellite-terrestrial integrated networks: A survey,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 98269-98292, 2023, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3313229.

[14] B. Hu, X. Zhang, Q. Zhang, N. Varyani, Z. M. Mao, F. Qian, and Z.-L. Zhang, “LEO satellite vs. cellular networks: Exploring the potential for synergistic integration,” in Proc. 19th Int. Conf. Emerging Netw. Exp. Technol. (CoNEXT Companion), 2023, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1145/3624354.3630588.

[15] W. Zhang, J. Liu, and X. Chen, “Resilient network architectures for education and research backbones,” IEEE Netw., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 52-59, Jul./Aug. 2023.

[16] ARENA-PAC, “Agreement to Enhance Japan-Indonesia Research and Education Network Collaboration Signed” (konteks/glosarium IdREN). [Online]. Available: https://www.arena-pac.net/2022/09/01/arenapac-ub-idren-collaborate-100gbps-network/. [Diakses: 13 Desember 2025].

[17] C. Demichelis and P. Chimento, “IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM),” RFC 3393, Nov. 2002. [Online]. Available: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3393. [Diakses: 13 Desember 2025].

[18] G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, and M. Zekauskas, “A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM),” RFC 7680, Jan. 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7680. [Diakses: 13 Desember 2025].

[19] B. Constantine, G. Forget, R. Geib, and R. Schrage, “Framework for TCP Throughput Testing,” RFC 6349, Aug. 2011. [Online]. Available: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6349. [Diakses: 13 Desember 2025].

[20] MikroTik, “EoIP,” MikroTik RouterOS Documentation. [Online]. Available: https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/spaces/ROS/pages/24805521/EoIP. [Diakses: 13 Desember 2025].

[21] Y. Rekhter, T. Li, and S. Hares, “A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4),” RFC 4271, Jan. 2006. [Online]. Available: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4271. [Diakses: 13 Desember 2025].