<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">This is some really broad strokes. Are
there specifics on ID-1 protocol / framing somewhere?<br>
<br>
--Bart<br>
<br>
<br>
On 5/27/2014 4:59 PM, John D. Hays wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAN77r3zvJVW14KuAzpSMBXBXDtKp4xfDxHhNAwfzh+1q1QLKSg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://k7ve.org/blog"
target="_blank"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://k7ve.org/images/blog-icon-box-red-26.png"></a> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://twitter.com/#%21/john_hays" target="_blank"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://k7ve.org/images/Twitter-26.png"></a> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays"
target="_blank"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org" target="_blank">PSDR@hamwan.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org">PSDR@hamwan.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
<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>