[HamWAN PSDR] 1.2GHz to Paine [was: 44.x.x.x HamWAN network at Paine]

[Dean Gibson AE7Q]

Ah, I'd like the IP address you are PINGing.  What do you type after the 
command "ping"?

On 2014-05-25 10:22, Bob wrote:
>
> The router is setup as follows:
>
> IP: 10.136.19.168
>
> Sub Mask: 255.0.0.0
>
> Gateway: 10.0.0.1
>
> DNS: 10.0.0.2
>
> Alt: 10.0.0.1
>
> Bob
>
> *From:*PSDR [mailto:psdr-bounces at hamwan.org] *On Behalf Of *Dean 
> Gibson AE7Q
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 24, 2014 9:33 PM
> *To:* Puget Sound Data Ring
> *Subject:* Re: [HamWAN PSDR] 1.2GHz to Paine [was: 44.x.x.x HamWAN 
> network at Paine]
>
> When you attempt to ping using the K7LWH/DD module, what IP address do 
> you specify?
>
> On 2014-05-24 14:36, Bob wrote:
>
>     Dean,
>
>     Here are some observations and conclusion that I have come up with
>     in adding the ID-1 to the Kirkland Emergency Communications Team's
>     tool box.  I have done a number of tests of the ID-1 from various
>     locations in Kirkland in both the Digital Data (DD) mode and the
>     Digital Voice (DV) mode.  I tested simplex paths (ID-1 to ID-1)
>     and paths to the Lake Washington Ham Club (LWHC) DSTAR DV repeater
>     and DD gateway nodes in Bellevue.
>
>     1.There are a few locations in Kirkland that have direct visual
>     line of site to LWHC Gateway in Belleview.  From those locations,
>     pings are consistently returned in 100 to 200ms with an occasional
>     loss.
>
>     2.We have two location (Stations 22 and 25) are not visual but
>     according to Radio Mobile modeling skim the terrain.  At these
>     sights no ping are returned.
>
>     3.At my home QTH (Lat: 47.694 Lon: -122.2161) I do not have a
>     visual of the LWHC Gateway, but I get occasional pings returned.
>
>     4.John Hays loan me a 1.23 GHz directional antenna. With the
>     directional antenna I detected two paths to the gateway. One was
>     off a condo about 180 degrees from the gateway about a mile away;
>     the other was off the NOAA building four miles awat at Sand Point
>     about 15 degrees clockwise from the gateway.  This indicates the
>     presents of multi-paths that could be interfering with the data
>     even with good signal strength.
>
>     5.I will also confirm the DV mode is more robust than the DD mode,
>     but it too is affect by multi-path.
>
>     About 2 weeks ago I brought the ID-1 on line to serve as an
>     alternate path to the Winlink CMS.
>
>     Bob -- KE7JL
>
>
>
>     *From:*PSDR [mailto:psdr-bounces at hamwan.org] *On Behalf Of *Dean
>     Gibson AE7Q
>     *Sent:* Saturday, May 24, 2014 10:20 AM
>     *To:* Puget Sound Data Ring
>     *Subject:* [HamWAN PSDR] 1.2GHz to Paine [was: 44.x.x.x HamWAN
>     network at Paine]
>
>     Scott Honaker and I have moved forward on this project:
>
>      1. We have installed a gateway (Linksys BEFSR41) between the ID-1
>         and the internal ARES/RACES subnet (not 44.x.x.x) of the DEM.
>      2. We have installed a Digi "AnywhereUSB" box to give us remote
>         access to the ID-1's USB port, and thus remote control of the
>         ID-1 radio.  This not only allows multiple use of the ID-1
>         (which has useful 1.2GHz FM and digital voice modes as well as
>         Ethernet data), but provides for remote frequency agility and
>         a diagnostic capability.  This works beautifully (eg, to
>         search for and use a low-noise frequency)!
>
>     Unfortunately, what does not work very well, is the RF portion of
>     the connection.  PINGs failed at a rate of over 99% when using the
>     1.2GHz antenna at the 70 ft level on the tower, so we swapped the
>     antenna with the one used for the Icom 1.2GHz repeater (which
>     wasn't seeing any action anyway) at 100 ft.  That made a
>     "dramatic" improvement, as PINGs now only fail at a 98% rate
>     (depends upon the time of day, etc)!
>
>     Antenna comparison between 1.2GHz and 5.9 GHz for the two sites:
>
>      1. On 1.2GHz, both antennas are omni-directional.
>      2. At the DEM, the 1.2GHz antenna is now at the 100' level,
>         whereas the 5.9GHz antenna is at 150'.
>      3. At my home, the 1.2GHz antenna is about 10' above the 5.9GHz
>         antenna, and it's on the same line-of-sight path.
>
>     Note that voice communication between the two sites using the two
>     ID-1 radios, is fine (there is a slight bit of noise on FM).
>
>     The big difference, in my opinion?  I'll bet that the wireless
>     protocol used by the MikroTik radios includes an aggressive error
>     correction and retry protocol, whereas the ID-1 is like a piece of
>     Ethernet cable, and thus relies on the standard TCP/IP retry
>     mechanism.  The TCP/IP protocols, while "unreliable" in the
>     technical sense of the term, require a higher overall reliability
>     than a typical raw wireless connection.
>
>     What this says (and I'm a bit surprised to note this), is that
>     sites considering using ID-1 radios for data communications, may
>     find that even with the tighter siting requirements of 5.9GHz,
>     that the latter may be more successful (whether or not part of
>     HamWAN).  In addition to being a lower-cost radio with a much
>     higher data rate, the MikroTik radios offer a built-in router,
>     which can obviate the need for a separate router.
>
>     -- Dean
>
>     ps: The callsign and digital code filtering features of D-Star
>     that we previously discussed, are not available (greyed out in the
>     software) for digital *data* mode.  Huh?  Another fine example of
>     software of the "seven last words" of poor program design: *"Why
>     would you want to do that?"*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PSDR mailing list
> PSDR at hamwan.org
> http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.hamwan.net/pipermail/psdr/attachments/20140526/ea48972d/attachment.html>