For those of you who are or have been users of the Solaris OS, you
should find the following article interesting. Among other things,
it once again points out some of the advantages of open source.
http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2017/09/04/the-sudden-death-and-eternal-life-of…
I mention this because there are those who have the impression that
'amprgw' is running on Solaris. It is not; it never has. It ran on the
predecessor, SunOS, for some years, but has been running on FreeBSD for
a long time.
- Brian
Lin,
Some time back I picked up a pair of Gemini G3 Dataradios on ebay,
hoping to be able to use them. I quickly learned they really cannot
be used point to point, and you need the expensive base station to act
as a controller between them.
I swear I have read that some models of the radios are capable of
point to point/ peer to peer use. Do you or anyone else know which
models would be good candidates for such a thing?
I ended up giving them to a friend who documented them the best he could:
http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/gemini/index.html
> Y'know, there is some relevance in a significantly asynchronous circuit
> with this stuff.
I think the correct label is "asymmetric" but many people call it "asynchronous"...
> Put the High speed TX on the top of the mountain and have it push high
> speed frames in broadcast or multicast mode whilst the outlying stations
> listen to the stream and write down the packets relevant to them.
This is of course what I had in mind. We don't have any mountains here but we
have a 3cm ATV repeater at 220m in a broadcast tower transmitting a DVB multiplex
where we could use some bandwidth (or e.g. the bandwidth remaining after the
several variable-rate encoded ATV channels have had their share) to transmit
IP over DVB. Both broadcast/multicast traffic (like IPTV streams from the repeater) and
traffic to a single endpoint (after all, we do not hide traffic from eachother).
The return channel could be much slower indeed, depending on the kind of traffic
and the required return traffic. Maybe even a 9600+ baud packet link, or one of
those newly developed 70cm links of about 400kHz width.
At the moment the repeater is not operating, but we are working on getting it back
on the air.
Rob
While I applaud Ron's experiments, it would have a very long road to
becoming something practical for the masses. Heck I can say the same
for the NWDigital radio. They have been trying for quite some time to
make the thing happen. I fear by the time either would come to
fruition, the whole market / tech landscape could be different. (I.e,
56k is not as appealing at the price point as it was 10 years ago when
they started, etc)
As for the ARRL, I am the only one who pounces on their staff
virtually every chance I get (at ham fests and by email), about
getting some of these changes though their heads? I think a
coordinated approach, can help our cause. In addition, anyone can
make comment directly to the FCC. How seriously they take things
without someone waving money in their face is a whole another issue.
I wrote this paper quite some time ago, that covers quite a few of the issues:
http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/70cm-ATV-HSMM.html
Basically they way I see it, one has three ways to experiment:
1.) Pay for/file for a STA, which gives you 6 months
2.) Include some element of image transfer, so what your doing can be
classified as an image transmission rather than data. (most
logical/easiest to do)
3.) Develop a data mode that uses multiple carriers, as each carrier
can be 100 KHz wide.
#3 is something I joked with friends about when I was in high school.
That was long before SDR, so we envisioned taking a few TNC's and
radio's on different frequencies, RF combiners and tons of filters to
make it actually work, and from there channel bond/load balance all
the data streams to achieve better throughput.
Do we have anyone who holds a ARRL position on this list?
Steve, KB9MWR
Mark Phillips <g7ltt at g7ltt.com> wrote:
>
>"Maybe someone at ARRL ...."
>
>Ha! Funny.
>
>It's been many folks' experience that the ARRL does nothing that is not in
>its own interest. Unless they can be persuaded that XYZ technology is good
>for them and Ham Radio they won't lift a finger. It should also be noted
>that the ARRL speaks for less than 20% of the US ham population (see
>membership figures posted in QRZ). We are 700K+ hams here in the US. ARRL
>has less than 100K members. That said, they are the only group able to
>engage the FCC and push for changes etc. It's an expensive proposition!
> Setting up a NNTP server is easy in JNOS. Pretty tricky on Linux...
Actually it is easy, just "apt-get install inn" and editing a couple of config files.
Of course you first need to understand the architecture of USENET and the INN software
but there is documentation available. It is comparable to the complexity of configuring
JNOS when you have not done that before.
Rob
> USENET is obsolete. Don't waste your time on it.
Well, not as obsolete as a mailing list...
A closed news server would be much more convenient to use for discussions like this than a list...
(and of course you could run it on a Raspberry Pi :-)
Rob
If you're one of the very few people who have ever taken advantage of
the ability to read USENET news via AMPRNet and the news.ucsd.edu server,
you should be aware that that server is failing from old age and will be
taken out of service soon. We don't plan to replace it; Usenet itself
is fading away. I co-authored the NNTP protocol some 31 years ago;
that's a pretty good run for any internet standard.
If you really need your Usenet fix every day, you might want to
investigate www.eternal-september.org, which offers free Usenet access
(but has very limited resources).
- Brian
Brian,
Can we make this list open to just those named in the description of the group… amprnet users and gateway operators for ops related items.
--
Fredric Moses - W8FSM - WQOG498
fred(a)moses.bz
> I think you meant /48’s or at least a /63 -- a /64 is meant to be the
> smallest subnet -- it is not meant to be sub-divided any further. Because
> some ISPs are allocating /64’s to their customers, I also think a ham-radio
> allocation would be good.
A /64 would be enough for a radio amateur with a simple network who wants to join
a ham-radio network. It would surely not be optimal, but I would not expect an ISP
that is that clueless (to allocate a single /64 to their customers) to be willing
to route foreign network space to their customers. So what use would it be to
have portable address space as a solution for that?
Rob
