[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 15:31:32 PDT 2014
I hasten to add, the IP address you want to PING, is (currently) 10.0.0.1.
For lurkers: Yes, DHCP is enabled on the RF side of the router at the
DEM, but if you are having trouble connecting with PINGs, the
probability of a successful DHCP IP assignment will be low.
On 2014-05-26 15:15, Dean Gibson AE7Q wrote:
> 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?"*
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140526/15c22377/attachment.html>
More information about the PSDR
mailing list