29 May
2016
29 May
'16
4:32 p.m.
Hi there
Is there anyone that use AMPRNET for connecting VOIP gear (such as echolink
alients (or even Digital repeaters (DMR D-STAR etc) and can tell how is the fact
that every packet goes back and forth to UCSD router effect the connections ? is
the latency not making any problem ?
any comments from anyone that has tried that is appreciated
Thanks Forward
Ronen - 4Z4ZQ
http://www.ronen.org
Ronen Pinchooks (4Z4ZQ) WebSite<http://www.ronen.org/>
www.ronen.org
ronen.org (Ronen Pinchooks (4Z4ZQ) WebSite) is hosted by domainavenue.com
29 May
29 May
10:50 p.m.
New subject: AMPRNET katency in VOIP connections ?
Amprnet is used for VOIP extensively on Hamwan type segments where there is
plenty of bandwidth and BGP advertised direct routing on the Internet (no
passage through UCSD).
I would be very suspect of good performance through UCSD gateway for both
latency and more importantly for voice, jitter.
On May 29, 2016 2:33 AM, "R P" <ronenp(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
> Hi there
>
> Is there anyone that use AMPRNET for connecting VOIP gear (such
> as echolink alients (or even Digital repeaters (DMR D-STAR etc) and
> can tell how is the fact that every packet goes back and forth to
> UCSD router effect the connections ? is the latency not making any
> problem ?
>
> any comments from anyone that has tried that is appreciated
>
> Thanks Forward
>
> Ronen - 4Z4ZQ
>
> http://www.ronen.org
>
> Ronen Pinchooks (4Z4ZQ) WebSite<http://www.ronen.org/>
> www.ronen.org
> ronen.org (Ronen Pinchooks (4Z4ZQ) WebSite) is hosted by domainavenue.com
>
>
>
10:55 p.m.
New subject: AMPRNET katency in VOIP connections ?
I suspect it wouldn't work very well. The gateway at UCSD is not a
high-bandwidth connection.
- Brian
On May 29, 2016 2:33 AM, "R P"
<ronenp(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Is there anyone that use AMPRNET for connecting VOIP gear (such
> as echolink alients (or even Digital repeaters (DMR D-STAR etc) and
> can tell how is the fact that every packet goes back and forth to
> UCSD router effect the connections ? is the latency not making any
> problem ?
11:15 p.m.
New subject: AMPRNET katency in VOIP connections ?
Greetings;
On Sun, 2016-05-29 at 08:55 -0700, Brian Kantor wrote:
I suspect it wouldn't work very well. The gateway
at UCSD is not a
high-bandwidth connection.
I've tried it before and I concur, it's not the greatest way to pass
VoIP (via amprgate). You'll find that your jitter will be too great for
your application to maintain a good link.
--
<rhetorical> Why is it linux users can install and operate *any* version of M$
Windoze but the same can't be said in reverse?</rhetorical>
73 de Brian - N1URO
email: (see above)
Web: http://www.n1uro.net/
Ampr1: http://n1uro.ampr.org/
Ampr2: http://nos.n1uro.ampr.org
Linux Amateur Radio Services
axMail-Fax & URONode
http://uronode.sourceforge.net
http://axmail.sourceforge.net
AmprNet coordinator for:
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, and Vermont.
30 May
30 May
1:46 a.m.
New subject: AMPRNET katency in VOIP connections ?
We have use in Europe many Asterisk PBX connected via Hamnet/Amprnet
gateways with software phones (like phoner) or hardware phones (like Cisco
7940G) and working very well with connections across gateways.
You can see maps where visible online links between PBX in Europe:
http://db0sda.ampr.org/dundicrawler/
73 Waldek SP2ONG
2016-05-29 18:15 GMT+02:00 Brian <n1uro(a)n1uro.ampr.org>rg>:
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
> Greetings;
>
> On Sun, 2016-05-29 at 08:55 -0700, Brian Kantor wrote:
> > I suspect it wouldn't work very well. The gateway at UCSD is not a
> > high-bandwidth connection.
>
> I've tried it before and I concur, it's not the greatest way to pass
> VoIP (via amprgate). You'll find that your jitter will be too great for
> your application to maintain a good link.
>
> --
> <rhetorical> Why is it linux users can install and operate *any* version
> of M$
> Windoze but the same can't be said in reverse?</rhetorical>
>
> 73 de Brian - N1URO
> email: (see above)
> Web: http://www.n1uro.net/
> Ampr1: http://n1uro.ampr.org/
> Ampr2: http://nos.n1uro.ampr.org
> Linux Amateur Radio Services
> axMail-Fax & URONode
> http://uronode.sourceforge.net
> http://axmail.sourceforge.net
> AmprNet coordinator for:
> Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
> Maryland, Massachusetts,
> New Hampshire, Pennsylvania,
> Rhode Island, and Vermont.
>
7:30 a.m.
New subject: AMPRNET katency in VOIP connections ?
To/From non-44 net addresses?
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Waldek Waldek <sp2ong(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
> We have use in Europe many Asterisk PBX connected via Hamnet/Amprnet
> gateways with software phones (like phoner) or hardware phones (like Cisco
> 7940G) and working very well with connections across gateways.
>
> You can see maps where visible online links between PBX in Europe:
>
> http://db0sda.ampr.org/dundicrawler/
>
> 73 Waldek SP2ONG
>
> 2016-05-29 18:15 GMT+02:00 Brian <n1uro(a)n1uro.ampr.org>rg>:
>
> > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Greetings;
> >
> > On Sun, 2016-05-29 at 08:55 -0700, Brian Kantor wrote:
> > > I suspect it wouldn't work very well. The gateway at UCSD is not a
> > > high-bandwidth connection.
> >
> > I've tried it before and I concur, it's not the greatest way to pass
> > VoIP (via amprgate). You'll find that your jitter will be too great for
> > your application to maintain a good link.
> >
> > --
> > <rhetorical> Why is it linux users can install and operate *any* version
> > of M$
> > Windoze but the same can't be said in reverse?</rhetorical>
> >
> > 73 de Brian - N1URO
> > email: (see above)
> > Web: http://www.n1uro.net/
> > Ampr1: http://n1uro.ampr.org/
> > Ampr2: http://nos.n1uro.ampr.org
> > Linux Amateur Radio Services
> > axMail-Fax & URONode
> > http://uronode.sourceforge.net
> > http://axmail.sourceforge.net
> > AmprNet coordinator for:
> > Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
> > Maryland, Massachusetts,
> > New Hampshire, Pennsylvania,
> > Rhode Island, and Vermont.
> >
11:42 a.m.
New subject: AMPRNET katency in VOIP connections ?
Only 44<->44 network we use for VoIP.
PPX asterisk use DUNDI protocol for this reason if I know phone number
which base on callsign:
https://www.oe2wnl.at/calltodtmf-voip.php
I can make connection to this phone via my local PBX
73 Waldek
2016-05-30 2:30 GMT+02:00 K7VE - John <k7ve(a)k7ve.org>rg>:
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
> To/From non-44 net addresses?
>
> ------------------------------
> John D. Hays
> K7VE
> PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
> <http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
> <http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
>
1:41 p.m.
New subject: AMPRNET katency in VOIP connections ?
I have run Asterisk PBX for about 10 years, I have a pretty good idea how
it works.
The question is, are you only connecting endpoints that are using the
Net-44 addresses or are you going through amprhost (UCSD) out to IP
addresses on the general Internet?
If you are using Net-44 only addresses and tunneling then you might get
decent latency and jitter numbers -- I suspect not if it must pass through
amprhost to and from some address outside of Net-44.
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Waldek Waldek <sp2ong(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
> Only 44<->44 network we use for VoIP.
>
> PPX asterisk use DUNDI protocol for this reason if I know phone number
> which base on callsign:
>
> https://www.oe2wnl.at/calltodtmf-voip.php
>
> I can make connection to this phone via my local PBX
>
> 73 Waldek
>
> 2016-05-30 2:30 GMT+02:00 K7VE - John <k7ve(a)k7ve.org>rg>:
>
> > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> > _______________________________________________
> > To/From non-44 net addresses?
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > John D. Hays
> > K7VE
> > PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
> > <http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
> > <http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
> >
2:07 p.m.
New subject: AMPRNET katency in VOIP connections ?
John,
The system runs on 44-net addresses only.
German stations are linked by high speed wireless, independent from the
Internet.
Outsiders, like Waldek and myself use dedicated p2p links to that network.
So it has actually nothing to do with the UCSD gateway or the generic
tunneling system
(but it works via the IPIP tunnels, too).
Marius, YO2LOJ
-----Original Message-----
From: K7VE - John
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 09:41
To: AMPRNet working group
Subject: Re: [44net] AMPRNET katency in VOIP connections ?
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
I have run Asterisk PBX for about 10 years, I have a pretty good idea how
it works.
The question is, are you only connecting endpoints that are using the
Net-44 addresses or are you going through amprhost (UCSD) out to IP
addresses on the general Internet?
If you are using Net-44 only addresses and tunneling then you might get
decent latency and jitter numbers -- I suspect not if it must pass through
amprhost to and from some address outside of Net-44.
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Waldek Waldek <sp2ong(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
> Only 44<->44 network we use for VoIP.
>
> PPX asterisk use DUNDI protocol for this reason if I know phone number
> which base on callsign:
>
> https://www.oe2wnl.at/calltodtmf-voip.php
>
> I can make connection to this phone via my local PBX
>
> 73 Waldek
>
> 2016-05-30 2:30 GMT+02:00 K7VE - John <k7ve(a)k7ve.org>rg>:
>
> > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> > _______________________________________________
> > To/From non-44 net addresses?
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > John D. Hays
> > K7VE
> > PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
> > <http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
> > <http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
> >
2:47 p.m.
New subject: AMPRNET katency in VOIP connections ?
OK -- I suspect that works fine, but the original poster was asking about
VOIP through UCSD amprhost.
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 12:07 AM, Marius Petrescu <marius(a)yo2loj.ro> wrote:
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
> John,
>
> The system runs on 44-net addresses only.
> German stations are linked by high speed wireless, independent from the
> Internet.
> Outsiders, like Waldek and myself use dedicated p2p links to that network.
> So it has actually nothing to do with the UCSD gateway or the generic
> tunneling system
> (but it works via the IPIP tunnels, too).
>
> Marius, YO2LOJ
>
> -----Original Message----- From: K7VE - John
> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 09:41
> To: AMPRNet working group
> Subject: Re: [44net] AMPRNET katency in VOIP connections ?
>
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
> I have run Asterisk PBX for about 10 years, I have a pretty good idea how
> it works.
>
> The question is, are you only connecting endpoints that are using the
> Net-44 addresses or are you going through amprhost (UCSD) out to IP
> addresses on the general Internet?
>
> If you are using Net-44 only addresses and tunneling then you might get
> decent latency and jitter numbers -- I suspect not if it must pass through
> amprhost to and from some address outside of Net-44.
>
>
> On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Waldek Waldek <sp2ong(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
>> _______________________________________________
>> Only 44<->44 network we use for VoIP.
>>
>> PPX asterisk use DUNDI protocol for this reason if I know phone number
>> which base on callsign:
>>
>> https://www.oe2wnl.at/calltodtmf-voip.php
>>
>> I can make connection to this phone via my local PBX
>>
>> 73 Waldek
>>
>> 2016-05-30 2:30 GMT+02:00 K7VE - John <k7ve(a)k7ve.org>rg>:
>>
>> > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > To/From non-44 net addresses?
>> >
>> > ------------------------------
>> > John D. Hays
>> > K7VE
>> > PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
>> > <http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
>> > <http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
>> >
6:06 a.m.
New subject: AMPRNET katency in VOIP connections ?
I test Echolink and there is little cuts
but it works.
Best regards,
Ludovic - F5PBG.
7:39 a.m.
New subject: AMPRNET katency in VOIP connections ?
I use the bgp method and link our dstar repeaters with no loss or latency detected
Sam
Vk4aa
Sent from my Samsung 6 Edge!
-----Original Message-----
From: "f5pbg(a)free.fr" <f5pbg(a)free.fr>
To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Mon, 30 May 2016 9:06
Subject: Re: [44net] AMPRNET katency in VOIP connections ?
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
I test Echolink and there is little cuts
but it works.
Best regards,
Ludovic - F5PBG.
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
1:47 a.m.
The basic idea would be that AMPR to AMPR traffic is a go since it is
tunneled directly.
Public IP to AMPR is a no-go for tunneled networks.
They have a public Gateway IP anyway, so you should use that one for access
from the internet.
Marius, YO2LOJ
-----Original Message-----
From: R P
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 12:32
To: AMPRNet working group
Subject: [44net] AMPRNET katency in VOIP connections ?
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Hi there
Is there anyone that use AMPRNET for connecting VOIP gear (such as
echolink alients (or even Digital repeaters (DMR D-STAR etc) and can
tell how is the fact that every packet goes back and forth to UCSD
router effect the connections ? is the latency not making any problem
?
any comments from anyone that has tried that is appreciated
Thanks Forward
Ronen - 4Z4ZQ
http://www.ronen.org
Ronen Pinchooks (4Z4ZQ) WebSite<http://www.ronen.org/>
www.ronen.org
ronen.org (Ronen Pinchooks (4Z4ZQ) WebSite) is hosted by domainavenue.com
3128
days inactive
3129
days old
12 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Brian -
Brian Kantor -
f5pbg＠free.fr -
John D. Hays -
K7VE - John -
Marius Petrescu -
R P -
VK4AA Sam -
Waldek Waldek