<div dir="ltr">ID-1 simply encapsulates an Ethernet frame behind a D-STAR header. The header has some correction, but the Ethernet frame is not corrected by D-STAR.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><br><hr>
<div style="float:left;padding-left:1em;color:blue">John D. Hays<br><span style="color:rgb(128,128,128)">K7VE</span></div><div style="float:right;text-align:right">PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 <div style="padding-top:0.5em">
<a href="http://k7ve.org/blog" target="_blank"><img src="http://k7ve.org/images/blog-icon-box-red-26.png"></a> <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays" target="_blank"><img src="http://k7ve.org/images/Twitter-26.png"></a> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays" target="_blank"><img src="http://k7ve.org/images/Facebook-26.png"></a></div>
</div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Bart Kus <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:me@bartk.us" target="_blank">me@bartk.us</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
There's no protocol I'm aware of that implements these features on
top of ID-1. You'd need the ability to receive corrupt frames from
the ID1 to allow the use of FEC. How does the ID1 handle corrupt
frames? Is there a CRC or something in the framing? For ARQ, you
could keep the TX retrying until it hears an ACK or times out.
Custom software would be needed, or perhaps pppd can do such tricks,
I dunno.<br>
<br>
Did you hear any signal when you listened with an FM receiver? Can
you use an RTL-SDR or equivalent to see if there's any signal
present?<br>
<br>
--Bart<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 5/24/2014 8:36 PM, Dean Gibson AE7Q
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
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>On 2014-05-24 13:13, Bart Kus wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>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 type="cite">
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><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
<a href="mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org" target="_blank">PSDR@hamwan.org</a>
<a href="http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org" target="_blank">http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
PSDR mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org">PSDR@hamwan.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org" target="_blank">http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>