".... may use any technique whose
technical characteristics have been documented publicly ...."
This mode is documented publicly along with its source code. I'd say we are
good.
So now it's just the symbol rate and bandwidth issue to overcome.
I like the idea of multiple carriers too. Bond them together on demand
perhaps?
Mark
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:54 PM Steve L via 44Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
wrote:
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Steve L <kb9mwr(a)gmail.com>
> To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 15:54:13 -0500
> Subject: Re: [44net] NPR (New Packet Radio) : new firmware with 56kBaud
> and 120kBaud
> The rules no longer really specify how you must ID, like pre-1980's.
> Basically in this case you ID in the mode
> itself, just like D-Star, YSF etc, does.
>
> If the digital code was unspecified (also allowed) you'd likely have
> to default to a CW ID.
>
> §97.119 Station Identification
>
> (b) The call sign must be transmitted with an emission authorized for
> the transmitting channel in one of the following ways:
>
> (3) By a RTTY emission using a specified digital code when all or part
> of the communications are transmitted by a RTTY or data emission;
>
> §97.309 RTTY and data emission codes.
>
> (4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a
> digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose
> technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as
> CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating
> communications.
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:40 AM David Ranch <amprgw(a)trinnet.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm not an expert on FCC Part 97 and I don't want to derail this
> > conversation but I don't think some of these protocols are legally
> > self-identifying.
> >
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Steve L via 44Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
> To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
> Cc: Steve L <kb9mwr(a)gmail.com>
> Bcc:
> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 15:54:13 -0500
> Subject: Re: [44net] NPR (New Packet Radio) : new firmware with 56kBaud
> and 120kBaud
> _________________________________________
> 44Net mailing list
> 44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
> https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
>
Hello,
I am Guillaume, callsign F4HDK, a french amateur-radio operator, and a
hacker-maker.
I would like to share with you my last project : NPR (New Packet Radio).
All documentation is provided here :
https://hackaday.io/project/164092-npr-new-packet-radio
This solution can transport bi directional IP trafic over 70cm radio
links, in a 'point to multipoint' topology, at datarate up to 500kbps.
This can be used to increase the range of existing HSMM-Hamnet networks,
at lower datarates.
It's designed for "access", not backbone, and not designed for H24 use.
Its is 100% open-source.
Do not hesitate to ask me questions about it.
I hope it will interest some people here.
73,
Guillaume F4HDK
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019, David Ranch wrote:
> >/(6) A RTTY, data or multiplexed emission using a specified digital code /> >/listed in ?97.309(a) of this part may be transmitted. The symbol rate
must not /> >/exceed 56 kilobauds. A RTTY, data or multiplexed emission using an
unspecified /> >/digital code under the limitations listed in ?97.309(b) of this part
also may /> >/be transmitted. The authorized bandwidth is 100 kHz. /
> 56 kilobauds is because the Telebit Trailblazer existed; it used OFDM
> and 6 "baud" carriers.
The Trailblazer was fast, but it wasn't *that* fast!
It actually was like 19200 baud async, internally some 18kbps sync.
This was fast compared to the usual V.22bis (2400 bps) modems of the day, but of
course later telephone modems appeared that could to 56k.
We ran a Unix system with UUCP at work in those days but we could not use modems that fast
because the machine wasn't able to handle full 19200 baud async I/O as it could not
handle the interrupt load... those were the days.
(It was an NCR system with a separate processor for serial I/O, but IBM PC and clones
in those days also struggled at 19200, that is why the 16550 chip with hardware FIFO
was created...)
A couple of years later I bought a ZyXEL U-1496+ modem that also did 19200 over phone
lines, and was popular at some local ISPs. Like the Trailblazer it also used a 68000
processor and it cost well over $500 in local currency.
I agree that those modems are not going to work over radio. Even on telephone lines
they perform lengthy "training" sequences to measure the phase response of the line,
and then assume it remains the same over the duration of the call.
Rob
Telebit was doing the modulation in signal processing software in a
dedicated big-grasshopper-sized Motorola 68000 chip inside the modem.
These days we could do the same modulation in software in just about any
chip. But as Brian said, the signal impairments in multi kilometer
twisted pair telephone circuits with occasional loading coils, chopped
into 56k digital bitstreams and reconstituted at the other end before
transiting a different long twisted pair, are very different than the
impairments typically experienced when passing a signal thru typical
radio circuitry and kilometers of radio "ether" and interference.
There's free software for messing with OFDM over narrowband radio
(e.g. not WiFi); here are a few starting points:
https://github.com/rwth-ti/gr-ofdmhttps://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4984&context=theseshttps://github.com/kit-cel/gr-lte
John
My guess it depend how many updates their information.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 3:51 AM R P via 44Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: R P <ronenp(a)hotmail.com>
> To: "44net(a)mailman.ampr.org" <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 07:49:41 +0000
> Subject: Portal encap file by email option
> Hi there
> I have noticed that there is option to get the encap file by email
> does anyone know how often the file change a day ? (if i chose to get it "when file change" ) ?
> Thanks forware
> Ronen - 4Z4ZQ
> http://www.ronen.org
> Ronen Pinchooks (4Z4ZQ) WebSite<http://www.ronen.org/>
> ronen.org (Ronen Pinchooks (4Z4ZQ) WebSite) is hosted by domainavenue.com
> www.ronen.org
>
>
>
> [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-anima…]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: R P via 44Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
> To: "44net(a)mailman.ampr.org" <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
> Cc: R P <ronenp(a)hotmail.com>
> Bcc:
> Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 07:49:41 +0000
> Subject: [44net] Portal encap file by email option
> _________________________________________
> 44Net mailing list
> 44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
> https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
--
Sysop de: VE2PKT (BBS), VE2PKT-13 (URONode)
: VE2RCN-1, VE2RGM-1, VE2RGC-1, VE2RVA-1, (The-Net)
: VE2PKT-9 (DXCluster), VE2PKT-10 (Winlink Gateway)
RF:
147.435 Mhz (1200 Bps),
Internet:
Telnet://nodes-ve2pkt.dyndns.org port 23 (Network Node)
Telnet://fbb-ve2pkt.dyndns.org port 6300 (FBB BBS)
Telnet://ve2pkt.dyndns.org port 9000 (DXCluster)
E-Mail:
packet: ve2pkt(a)ve2pkt.#qbc.qc.can.noam
ampr net: ve2pkt(a)ve2pkt.ampr.org
Inet: ve2pkt(a)gmail.com
Because some of the gateways have dynamic IP addresses, the file
can change often, sometimes as often as once an hour.
- Brian
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 07:49:41AM +0000, R P via 44Net wrote:
> From: R P <ronenp(a)hotmail.com>
> Subject: Portal encap file by email option
>
> Hi there
> I have noticed that there is option to get the encap file by email
> does anyone know how often the file change a day ? (if i chose to get it "when file change" ) ?
> Thanks forware
> Ronen - 4Z4ZQ
> http://www.ronen.org
> Ronen Pinchooks (4Z4ZQ) WebSite<http://www.ronen.org/>
> ronen.org (Ronen Pinchooks (4Z4ZQ) WebSite) is hosted by domainavenue.com
> www.ronen.org
Hi,
after a change of my dynamic IP address
happened yesterday afternoon the 44net
gateway remained on my expired IP, so
after a double check after several hours
confirm that failure still remains.
May you check about it? TNX
--
73 and ciao, gustavo i0ojj/ir0aab/ir0eq
To all
I have checked the issue more deeply with two different routers and two different homes that get internet feed
My home use Cable modem that on its DMZ sit a MikroTik Router .
Even when the cable modem set to no DMZ at all i still get amprnet traffic to my home and all is working fine but if i point on the DMZ to a PC that have a web server and from outside world surf to my publiic IP i get the web server respond but if i shut the DMZ the web server is not answering to requests anymore so the DMZ mechanism, is functioning but it turn out that for the ipip tunnel the DMZ dont effect at all
it has been tested with two different modems in two different internet feeds and two AMPRNET networks
my cable modem modem work as a Router and do NAT for the Internet to Private addresses (192.168.1.x) and the MOkroTik router sit on this address and do the IPIP tunnel to UCSD
The other home use modem that is used as a transparent mode and connected to first mikrotik that makes the NAT for the Private network (10.0.0.x) and after this modem there is additional mikrotik that do the IPIP to UCSD and it work without any DMZ or Port redirection
I dont know to explain it but that is the facts and its hard to argue with that currently at my home the DMZ point to a computer that do Echolink bridge to our NatoinWide DMR system and not to the router that do the IPIP and i have a working AMPRNET ....
Regards
Ronen -4Z4ZQ
________________________________
From: 44Net <44net-bounces+ronenp=hotmail.com(a)mailman.ampr.org> on behalf of Michael Cullen via 44Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 7:09 AM
To: AMPRNet working group
Cc: Michael Cullen
Subject: Re: [44net] UCSD tunnel behing NAT and Firewall setting ?
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
Hi Nate,
I can certainly add this to the TODO list if it is of interest.
Regards,
Chris
> On 13 May 2019, at 22:22, Nate Sales via 44Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
>
>
> From: Nate Sales <nate.wsales(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Portal API
> Date: 13 May 2019 at 22:22:55 BST
> To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
>
>
> Hello,
> Is there any plan to make the API more complete? It would be really cool to
> be able to update gateways and such programatically.
> 73,
> -Nate
>
>
> _________________________________________
> 44Net mailing list
> 44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
> https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
