[HamWAN PSDR] 1.2GHz to Paine [was: 44.x.x.x HamWAN network at Paine]
Dean Gibson AE7Q
hamwan at ae7q.com
Mon May 26 10:11:51 PDT 2014
I'm presuming that you are PINGing the gateway (10.0.0.1), which in
normal circumstances will respond to PINGs, but I thought I'd ask ...
On 2014-05-26 09:01, Dean Gibson AE7Q wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140526/701ff7a8/attachment.html>
More information about the PSDR
mailing list