<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
That's what I figured ("features [that] are common to all WiFi
systems"); it just made sense (although that is not always
determinative!).<br>
<br>
So, my next question: Is there an available tunneling protocol that
employs those features?<br>
<br>
Note that with the ID-1 in the <b>one watt</b> setting (same omni
antenna), I can use the 1.2GHz KB7CNN repeater 35 miles away on East
Tiger mountain, with no noise in the FM signal. The link to Paine (5
miles away) was tried at max power (ten watts) on both radios. I
tried two different frequencies (that's the beauty of being able to
control both radios from one location!): 1.250GHz and 1.249GHz (I
listened on both in FM mode), with no significant difference. So,
in my opinion, it's a path problem.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2014-05-24 13:13, Bart Kus wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5380FD6C.9090300@bartk.us" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Wow that sucks. :( Is the signal
level just too low? Is it a matter of interference?<br>
<br>
And yeah, I can confirm that the microwave stuff we use includes
both FEC (at up to 1/2 rate) and an ARQ system (look at
"hw-retries" setting). These features are common to all WiFi
systems too, and they're just carried over into our NV2 TDMA
system.<br>
<br>
--Bart<br>
<br>
On 5/24/2014 10:19 AM, Dean Gibson AE7Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5380D4B3.1040009@ae7q.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
Scott Honaker and I have moved forward on this project:<br>
<ol>
<li>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.</li>
<li>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)!</li>
</ol>
<p>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)!<br>
</p>
<p>Antenna comparison between 1.2GHz and 5.9 GHz for the two
sites:<br>
</p>
<ol>
<li>On 1.2GHz, both antennas are omni-directional.</li>
<li>At the DEM, the 1.2GHz antenna is now at the 100' level,
whereas the 5.9GHz antenna is at 150'.</li>
<li>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.</li>
</ol>
<p>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).<br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>-- Dean<br>
</p>
<p>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 <b>data</b> mode. Huh?
Another fine example of software of the "seven last words" of
poor program design: <b>"Why would you want to do that?"</b><b></b><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>