[HamWAN PSDR] Beacon Tower-Capital Park Backbone Link

[Rob Salsgiver]

If we’re looking at “experimenting” rather than jumping ship on standards at the moment, is there value in configuring two separate links at the same locations to compare/contrast with weather differences, etc – as well as find out any “cohabitation” problems between 2 or 3 frequency sets?  Obviously cost may be an issue, but if we have access and cooperative environments for both ends at the moment, why not learn as much as we can?

 

Just a thought.

 

Cheers,

Rob Salsgiver – NR3O

 

From: PSDR [mailto:psdr-bounces at hamwan.org] On Behalf Of Darcy Buskermolen
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 5:45 PM
To: Puget Sound Data Ring
Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Beacon Tower-Capital Park Backbone Link

 

Although for my day job I represent a specific hardware vendor, from a services standpoint we will weploy multi vendor if it's the right tool for the job.  What we do is try to limit the number of ad hoc differences.  So I'd definitely be in support with the idea of using the 3.4 or 10 as a pure bridge. That way most of the skill/knowledge for the hard bits (ie layer 3) is still microtik centric.

 

 

 

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 17:38 Kenny Richards, <richark at gmail.com> wrote:

Another possible benefit, if we figure out how to make the 3.4Ghz solution work between Beacon/CP, is it could be re-used between CP and Queen Anne. 

 

I totally understand Bart's point, having common standards is important and has benefits. I think what Doug is suggesting is that maybe this is a case where we need a new standard. We have hit a situation that the old approaches are not working, so lets look for a new one.

 

 

 

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:33 PM, Doug Kingston <dpk at randomnotes.org> wrote:

First, about access:  ACS has full access, round the clcck to Beacon and Capitol Park limited only by our COMT's (Mark, Carl, Doug, Randy, Casey) availability.  Bringing third parties requires about a week to establish a training mission number.  If we can do the work ourselves, then only our schedules are factors.

 

Thank you Nigel for your detailed response on the reuse point.  I am guessing from this that there is no objection in principle to trying to put this link in place.  We just need to fine the most compatible and affordable solution.  Randy has started researching this but we should double down on this.

 

-Doug-

 

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Bart Kus <me at bartk.us> wrote:

Well, since you asked "why not":

One of the advantages we've found with keeping things on a compatible band is the ad-hoc ability to link dishes to sectors during emergencies, or use dishes and sectors for spectral analysis on the one common band.

Another advantage is the uniformity of config / interface / automation by using the same vendor.  Don't need to train folks on special procedures or write exceptions into automation.

--Bart


On 3/29/2018 4:45 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:

On 3/29/18 7:38 PM, Doug Kingston wrote:

For example... Can we reuse a PtoP 5GHz frequency with high isolation (shielding)?

Why not use 3.4 GHz UBNT radios?  We have a link here in Tampa at 16.2 miles
across Tampa Bay running at 130 Mbit/s.

3.37 to 3.5 GHz (the frequency range of the M3 radios) is totally unused for
the most part.  A complete link is well under $1000 including antennas.

 

_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
PSDR at hamwan.org
http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr

 


_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
PSDR at hamwan.org
http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr

 

_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
PSDR at hamwan.org
http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.hamwan.net/pipermail/psdr/attachments/20180329/7fa75000/attachment-0001.html>