<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<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>
<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: "Why would you want to do that?"<br>
<br>
</p>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org">PSDR@hamwan.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org">http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>