[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 15:15:14 PDT 2014
If you want to try to PING the ID-1 at Snohomish County DEM, try the
following settings:
In your ID-1:
* Mode: DD
* Frequency: 1297.750
In your router:
* IP address: 172.20.10.2 (this is unique for you)
* Netmask: 255.255.0.0
* Gateway: 172.20.20.254
* DNS servers: (doesn't matter at this point)
Let me know how it goes ...
-- Dean
On 2014-05-26 11:14, Bob wrote:
>
> 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 variety 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 implementation
> 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 find 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?"*
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.hamwan.net/pipermail/psdr/attachments/20140526/2e88091e/attachment.html>
More information about the PSDR
mailing list