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

Mon May 26 11:14:12 PDT 2014

It was over four years ago that I started this project.  At the time my
knowledge of networking was 2 of a scale of 10.  Today I might be a 3.5;
still have a lot to learn.

Initially I had a XP lap top connected directly to the ID-1. It was
configured the same as the router below.

I started by pinging the gateway.  LWHC has a number of IP addresses
assigned, not all will reply to a pings. 

I use "ping 10.0.0.1"  (basic garden verity ping) to determine if I had a
usable path.

I then "ping Comcast.net" and got an average reply time of 243ms through the
ID-1 and K7LWH-DD.  This compares to a Concast.net ping using my commercial
(Comcast) account of 98ms.

I then connected to Bing.com, Google.com and ARRL.org through K7LWH-DD using
Internet Explorer.  The performance, subjectively, was a little better than
a dial up connection.

I stopped most work on our high speed data project in early 2012.   I
reactivated it as a feasibility study rather than an implication project.

I now have the ID-1 connected to a router.  With a Windows7 computer
connected to the router, I can "ping 10.0.0.1" with average times between
110 and 120 ms.  Internet Explore does not connect to Bing, Google, nor
ARRL.org  and Packlink indicates that it cannot fine a path to a Winlink CMS
but somehow messages get to the CMS via telnet connection.

Anyhow, at least for now, we have an alternate path to get emails out of
Kirkland if we lose internet at the City Hall.  I am changing the focus of
high speed data transfer away from the ID-1 to HamWAN and  NW-MESH.

Regards

Bob - KE7JL

From: PSDR [mailto:psdr-bounces at hamwan.org] On Behalf Of Dean Gibson AE7Q
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 9:01 AM
To: Puget Sound Data Ring
Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] 1.2GHz to Paine [was: 44.x.x.x HamWAN network at
Paine]

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/cd80a063/attachment.html>