44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

3194 discussions

Re: [44net] Use of higher bands
by Michael E. Fox - N6MEF 08 Jul '13

08 Jul '13

Eric, I applaud your intent. But, as far as I can tell, there are several major issues with what you're saying: 1) The FCC rules push me to NOT use amateur bands for data. Any application that is actually useful is going to be something that communicate with non-hams, too. Look at the popularity of WL2K. But Part 97 prohibits traffic from being automatically forwarded if it was originated by a 3rd party. So I can send an email to my grandmother. But she can't send me a message if delivering it would require automatic forwarding (such as between JNOS BBSs) over an amateur frequency to reach me. So that means I need a non-amateur network path to every machine. So we're working on that, including using 5.8G consumer stuff. But, gee whiz, once that's done, and I've got a few Mbps between each system, (and it's encrypted to boot!) why use the amateur frequencies at all? In my mind, studying for and getting an amateur radio license should give you MORE privileges. And sure, we get access to more frequencies, but we're highly restricted on what we can do with them. It's like giving a kid a new bike and then telling him he can only use it in the driveway. What's the point? 2) Can't get there from here. Here in silicon valley, 900 is pretty worthless - much too noisy. 2.4 is very crowded. It's hard to get enough S/N to rise above the noise floor. We shoot point-to-point 5.8G links using 5 degree dishes to give us enough S/N. Sector antennas just didn't work. But we can't use 5.8G at 2 of our locations because trees obstruct the path. Anything higher in frequency would be even worse. 3) COTS is available? I don't think so. Not really in any useful, accessible way. We use the Ubiquity stuff on 5.8G. I don't want to make any modifications that will void a warranty. (Actually, I don't want to dink around with hardware modifications anyway.) But even if that is possible, see problem #1. What would be the point unless it's just to talk to the other hams that have done the same thing? In all of silicon valley -- a few million people -- I can probably count the number of hams with the time and desire to do that on one hand. Now, lest you think I'm just a nay-sayer - you can see what we do here: http://www.scc-ares-races.org/packet.html I'm the sysop for 6 JNOS BBSs, including the gateways and other network stuff. I authored most of the content on the above web page and the pages it links to. (That page doesn't mention the email gateway services we're about to roll out). I think focusing on the technology is the wrong thing to do. Figure out what application you want to enable and then solve that problem. For our county, our application was mostly emcomm and the ability to locate anywhere in the county (literally anywhere, with or without power, with or without Internet) and be able to send/receive text and forms data. The county uses several ICS-type forms. City CERT orgs send damage report summary forms. The hospitals have several forms they use. It's a really big deal for them. That's all made possible by custom software written by several folks here. So, what is the application that will drive more AMPRnet use? Honestly, because of #1 above, I don't think there is one! ;-( But hey, if anyone has ideas, I'm always looking for the next thing. Michael N6MEF -----Original Message----- >Again I ask why are the higher bands not as attractive? Readily available >COTS Gear is available for 900Mhz, 2.4GHz, 3.4Ghz, 5.7Ghz, 10Ghz, & 24Ghz. >We ought to be looking to fill 5.7, 10, & 24 to the point that we can >show value in being there. it is our non use of these bands that makes >them easy targets for reallocation and takeover. Try reallocating for >instance the 2M Band in a major metropolitan city, you'd have an >uproar, but the middle microwave bands, easy chicken, egg. >Eric >AF6EP

6 9

Re: [44net] hardware vs. software
by Michael E. Fox - N6MEF 08 Jul '13

08 Jul '13

Actually, Linux on x86 hardware is just as much of a "hardware-based" solution as any proprietary OS on proprietary hardware is. In fact, Linux on x86 easily outperforms most proprietary hardware solutions up to and beyond the Cisco 7x00 range, especially with the current Intel architecture systems. Vyatta (now part of Brocade) and others have proven that over and over for the last several years. I hope we can establish something that's vendor neutral, rather than any type of single vendor lock-in. Michael N6MEF ---- In the performance class we are operating in, "hardware based" is not really required. A suitable box (processor and ethernet interfaces) and software (e.g. Linux plus some usermode tools) can do the same thing.

7 17

Re: [44net] 44Net Digest, Vol 2, Issue 84
by Rob Janssen 08 Jul '13

08 Jul '13

>Again I ask why are the higher bands not as attractive? Readily available >COTS Gear is available for 900Mhz, 2.4GHz, 3.4Ghz, 5.7Ghz, 10Ghz, & 24Ghz. >We ought to be looking to fill 5.7, 10, & 24 to the point that we can show >value in being there. it is our non use of these bands that makes them >easy targets for reallocation and takeover. Try reallocating for instance >the 2M Band in a major metropolitan city, you'd have an uproar, but the >middle microwave bands, easy chicken, egg. >Eric >AF6EP It may be different in the US, but here "an uproar" (if any) is not going to determine how bands are re-allocated. We have constructive discussion with the license authority, but in the end we are not the ones that decide. VHF/UHF band popularity has gone down anyway, because of license class changes. Until a decade ago, there was a separate "no code" license class that only allowed operation on VHF/UHF, and a "novice" class that allowed a couple of sub-bands and lower power. Then the code requirement was dropped for everyone, so now "no code" licensees (like me) can operate on all HF bands. "novice" class were given access to most of the HF bands as well. The result was that many active amateurs who always wanted to be on HF but were restrained by the code or exam level requirements now went there, and most DX activity the VHF/UHF bands vanished. There now are only repeaters (mostly silent) and a couple of local channels with very little activity. Tuning over the 2M band you may hear 2 or 3 QSOs. This weekend there was a contest but I only heard a German and a UK station, while a decade ago the SSB segment would be filled with activity. As it is now, there are not enough active hams here to setup and sustain something as involved as a data network. We had one in the past, but interest dropped with the availability of internet for everyone. Sure one could experiment with a link to a friend just for fun, but that is no significant band use. Unattended operation is more of a problem as well. We now need a special permit for anything that transmits beyond of the direct control of the operator. Presence of the operator while the gear is operating is no longer sufficient. Such special permits are given only for fixed frequencies and only in certain bands, and they also cost money. Rob PE1CHL

2 1

Re: [44net] a common vendor neutral hardware/software stack for 44net. - was Re: hardware vs. software
by kb9mwr＠gmail.com 07 Jul '13

07 Jul '13

I was thinking the same thing. If it's a data transmission then yes obviously the bandwidth rules apply. If it's an image transmission then a different set of rules apply. If its a spread spectrum transmission then 97.311 applies. The problem is defining what you are transmitting. http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/70cm-ATV-HSMM.html As for chewing the the band. You really have to look at it on a case by case basis, geographically. Where I live, 70cm is pretty dead, so a 5 MHz wide signal isn't a big deal. 15 years ago a guy was playing with analog ATV and that really did rip up the band, as it had no real filtering, and at the time the band was active. >97.307 doesn't apply to FHSS or DSSS. The applicable section is >97.311. Anyway this isn't the place to discuss rules in my opinion. However if we keep connecting slow speed conventional radios to the amprnet, then it will continue to be what is has for the last 20+ years. I am glad to see some people thinking out of the box, and exploring different technologies. Getting back on topic, I read there was a recent presentation titled "Providing authenticated amateur radio services on the Internet", is there a paper or video available for those of us who didn't attend?

3 3

Re: [44net] 44Net Digest, Vol 2, Issue 83
by Bryan Fields 07 Jul '13

07 Jul '13

On 7/7/13 12:13 PM, Bill Vodall wrote: > It should only cost about $1K each node and some hundreds of hours. > Then, when it's working - if you do find the paths, there will be > endless discussions of what can and can't flow on the system and what > keys can or can't be used. > > Compare that to Facebook today with a broadband account that just works. > > It'll be hard enough getting a path with an ID-1 (price reduced - $710 > at HRO) or UDR56K... Then you still have the content and use case > issues... First, most linking repeater systems cost 5-10k for a basic setup, so 1k a node is not out of line. Perhaps it's un-amateur of me, but I'm not so much concerned with potential minor part 97 violations if it means I'm on the air with others and providing a service to hams at large. Much like the legalities of dancing on ATV, I don't care to arm-chair lawyer mp3's over a data link, or logging every frame I send over the air. If something needs to change in part 97, I'll sign whatever petition, or comment on it if need be. I'm an engineer, and building networks is fun for me, not arguing about why we can't do it. -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net

1 0

Re: [44net] 44Net Digest, Vol 2, Issue 83
by Rob Janssen 07 Jul '13

07 Jul '13

>I remember hearing about these though I'd consider these to be somewhat of >an oddity. again why 70cm, only 30MHZ wide & already filled with other >users? Why is everyone so damn scared and afraid of moving to the amateur >microwave bands where we have 1555MHZ of mostly unused spectrum from >1.2-47.2GHz? Why must we recreate the wheel so much of the time when it >may be better, faster, easier, & cheaper to use directly or adapt a >solution already in use in another service. >Eric >AF6EP Well, partly because the availability of solutions in other services puts our band in danger. For example, the presence of WiFi in the 13cm band (we have 2320-2450) already resulted in a ban to use 2400-2450 because of WiFi interference. The same will probably happen on the 5.7 GHz band now that it is becoming more popular for WiFi. 70cm is only 10 MHz here and part of that is already allocated to other services and we are only secondary to them. 1240-1300 we are going to lose when Galileo (the European GPS) is becoming deployed. Only a small segment for DX will probably be left (1296) The more a band is attractive for other services, the more likely we are going to lose it soon. The much higher bands will remain availble for now, but they are not as attractive. Rob

3 2

a common vendor neutral hardware/software stack for 44net. - was Re: hardware vs. software
by Eric Fort 06 Jul '13

06 Jul '13

It would seem Linux and Ethernet whatever architecture it's running on would seem to be the best solution available for routing Net44 at the moment and it works well. a standardized plug and play package of hardware sold by your local candy store would be nice but we're only partially there. Being that 44NET/Amprnet is supposed to be a RADIO BASED IP NETWORK (or at least interconnected islands of RADIO BASED IP NETWORK) we seem to only have half of a standardized solution to offer. It seems that we have forgotten the RADIO part. Given a live piece of cat5 with bits on it that I wish to have show up elsewhere what can we offer to the average ham that can go on the tower with Ethernet in one side and an antenna on the other, especially something standard enough that a local group can set up a network with? The only thing I can think of that even comes close is the professional grade 802.11 hardware that's out there. (much of the consumer stuff lacks the configurablity we could really use such as power control and timeouts). I might propose that we standardize the RF interface for AMPRNET on an agreed physical layer (of 802.11 unless something else is proposed and made quickly and cheaply available) and a relatively standard stack of hardware and software be put forth as a package that could be turnkey deployed by interested parties. What would others think of embarking upon such a project as a group? who might be interested? and what might we offer? (PS. I know of at least one manufacture of gear that would be quite happy to mod a standard product or products so as to have them better fit the amateur radio band plan and channels on a couple of our microwave bands as well as make provision for the ability to get significant QRO above the 25-30dbm out that seems standard. This in production batches maybe as low as lots of 100 units) Eric On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Michael E. Fox - N6MEF <n6mef(a)mefox.org>wrote: > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) > _______________________________________________ > Actually, Linux on x86 hardware is just as much of a "hardware-based" > solution as any proprietary OS on proprietary hardware is. In fact, Linux > on x86 easily outperforms most proprietary hardware solutions up to and > beyond the Cisco 7x00 range, especially with the current Intel architecture > systems. Vyatta (now part of Brocade) and others have proven that over and > over for the last several years. > > I hope we can establish something that's vendor neutral, rather than any > type of single vendor lock-in. > > Michael > N6MEF > > > ---- > > In the performance class we are operating in, "hardware based" is not > really > required. > A suitable box (processor and ethernet interfaces) and software (e.g. Linux > plus some usermode > tools) can do the same thing. > > _________________________________________ > 44Net mailing list > 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu > http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net > http://www.ampr.org/donate.html >

7 11

Hessu
by Brian Rogers 01 Jul '13

01 Jul '13

Hessu; Can you please email me off list? Thanks in advance. -- Brian Rogers Phone: 860-673-4537 Email: n1uro(a)gmx.com Web: http://www.n1uro.net/ Ampr1: http://n1uro.ampr.org/ Ampr2: http://nos.n1uro.ampr.org/ Platform: Linux URONode/axMail-Fax created here! Coordinator for: 1-land, DE, and N.J AmprNet

1 0

Re: [44net] DMVPN routing for 44/8 subnets
by Bryan Fields 01 Jul '13

01 Jul '13

On 6/27/13 2:26 PM, K7VE - John wrote: > Great idea - wrong platform. Cisco specific solutions aren't reachable for > many. > > Look at Linux (Raspberry Pi) solutions or powerful, affordable routers like > MIkroTik and common tunneling protocols like OpenVPN, L2TP, GRE, etc. I take issue with that. MikroTik is just as much of a closed platform as Cisco/JNPR/ALU/Fond-cade/etc. Cisco is ubiquitous, to a lesser extent Juniper (though I have to favor ALU for MPLS/core!). I'd say what we need is an open standards based solution that works across linux/cisco/jnpr (maybe an o-series? :) Something custom protocol wise to tie the 44net together is not ideal either as we cannot expect the big router vendors to support amprnet protocols. I know I'm able to slap a 1ru router (ie c2[6-9]00) in lots of places with good connectivity I could never put a server. I belive there is a way to do this via NHRP with BGP. I know I have a customer doing something like this. Since we don't need crypto for 44net I suspect it would work for us. just my .02 73's -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net

6 10

DMVPN routing for 44/8 subnets
by jesse＠hindmarsh.cc 29 Jun '13

29 Jun '13

I am working on a lab design to add some flexibility and test other connection methods to the 44.0.0.0/8 network. I currently have a Linux gateway running rip44d for my main connectivity to the other 44/8 subnets. I have setup a Cisco based DMVPN where I can route other subnets to and route back to the Linux gateway for access to other subnets. This configuration also allows access from the public Internet to the allocated subnets via a Linux gateway. I have a diagram with a working layout and is in testing now. I am looking to see if anyone might be interested in connecting up to my cloud and see what and if any problems we may encounter. I use a very similar setup with my customers and there are some distinct advantages: - The end user would only need an internet connection and a Cisco DMVPN capable router. I have used 800, 1800, 2800, 3700 series Cisco routers. - The DMVPN works when you plug the Cisco router into a direct Internet or NAT connection. You can plug it in at home behind your Netgear home router, use DHCP and a private address on the router "public" interface. - Many subnets can be routed through a single Linux gateway and distributed easily. - No issues with dynamic IP address from your provider. If you are interested or have any comments or suggestions, take a look at the network diagram I made at http://www.hindmarsh.cc/images/wc3xs-ampr44.png 73 de WC3XS - Jesse

5 7

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net