a common vendor neutral hardware/software stack for 44net. - was Re: hardware vs. software
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@mefox.orgwrote:
(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@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
Eric
I like your thinking. I have looked into similar solutions such as Ubiquiti wireless devices. They have wireless devices that can be configured out of the ISM band and into the ham band with no mods. Plus they are in the sub $100 range making them a viable option. I have also played with some converted Linksys devices running HSMM-MESH. All great in theory, but in my case, I am an island. There are no hams in my region that would see the benefit or interest in such endeavors. They are more than happy to get their DX and go to bed.
Anyone in Northeast PA want to link up with some kind of RF/wireless and extend the Amprnet?
Jesse
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
There is a company that makes PCMCIA Cards that work on the 70cm ham band give out up to 0.5 watts and give high speed data rate (dont remember exectly how much but few mb/s ) that can serve for wireless link for tha ham community .... Regards Ronen - 4Z4ZQ http://www.ronen.org
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesse Hindmarsh" jesse@hindmarsh.cc To: "AMPRNet working group" 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu Cc: "AMPRNet working group" 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2013 1:06 AM Subject: Re: [44net] a common vendor neutral hardware/software stack for 44net. - was Re: hardware vs. software
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Eric
I like your thinking. I have looked into similar solutions such as
Ubiquiti wireless devices. They have wireless devices that can be configured out of the ISM band and into the ham band with no mods. Plus they are in the sub $100 range making them a viable option. I have also played with some converted Linksys devices running HSMM-MESH. All great in theory, but in my case, I am an island. There are no hams in my region that would see the benefit or interest in such endeavors. They are more than happy to get their DX and go to bed.
Anyone in Northeast PA want to link up with some kind of RF/wireless and
extend the Amprnet?
Jesse
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
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
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
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Ronen Pinchuk drorap@netvision.net.ilwrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ There is a company that makes PCMCIA Cards that work on the 70cm ham band give out up to 0.5 watts and give high speed data rate (dont remember exectly how much but few mb/s ) that can serve for wireless link for tha ham community .... Regards Ronen - 4Z4ZQ http://www.ronen.org
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesse Hindmarsh" jesse@hindmarsh.cc To: "AMPRNet working group" 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu Cc: "AMPRNet working group" 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2013 1:06 AM Subject: Re: [44net] a common vendor neutral hardware/software stack for 44net. - was Re: hardware vs. software
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Eric
I like your thinking. I have looked into similar solutions such as
Ubiquiti wireless devices. They have wireless devices that can be configured out of the ISM band and into the ham band with no mods. Plus they are in the sub $100 range making them a viable option. I have also played with some converted Linksys devices running HSMM-MESH. All great in theory, but in my case, I am an island. There are no hams in my region that would see the benefit or interest in such endeavors. They are more than happy to get their DX and go to bed.
Anyone in Northeast PA want to link up with some kind of RF/wireless and
extend the Amprnet?
Jesse
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
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
First of all it uses FHSS so it is not so interfeer to the other users ... second the bandwith can be adjusted (on the throughput of course) up to 2 MHZ if i remember correct but for me the big benefit is that it allow to have a mobile connection because it does not require line of sight a thing that 2.4GHZ require and also with 0.5W on 70CM you can get much bigger distance then with a regular WIFI gear
----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Fort" eric.fort@gmail.com To: "AMPRNet working group" 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 6:06 AM Subject: Re: [44net] a common vendor neutral hardware/software stack for 44net. - was Re: hardware vs. software
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ 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
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Ronen Pinchuk
drorap@netvision.net.ilwrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ There is a company that makes PCMCIA Cards that work on the 70cm ham band give out up to 0.5 watts and give high speed data rate (dont
remember
exectly how much but few mb/s ) that can serve for wireless link for tha ham community .... Regards Ronen - 4Z4ZQ http://www.ronen.org
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesse Hindmarsh" jesse@hindmarsh.cc To: "AMPRNet working group" 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu Cc: "AMPRNet working group" 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2013 1:06 AM Subject: Re: [44net] a common vendor neutral hardware/software stack for 44net. - was Re: hardware vs. software
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Eric
I like your thinking. I have looked into similar solutions such as
Ubiquiti wireless devices. They have wireless devices that can be configured out of the ISM band and into the ham band with no mods. Plus they are in the sub $100 range making them a viable option. I have also played with some converted Linksys devices running HSMM-MESH. All great in theory, but in
my
case, I am an island. There are no hams in my region that would see the benefit or interest in such endeavors. They are more than happy to get their DX and go to bed.
Anyone in Northeast PA want to link up with some kind of RF/wireless
and
extend the Amprnet?
Jesse
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
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
There were a couple of them at DCC Atlanta last year and they chewed up the 70cm band. US regulations limit to 56kbaud per carrier within 100 khz channel on 70cm. 97.307:
(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.
------------------------------ 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
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Ronen Pinchuk drorap@netvision.net.ilwrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ First of all it uses FHSS so it is not so interfeer to the other users ... second the bandwith can be adjusted (on the throughput of course) up to 2 MHZ if i remember correct but for me the big benefit is that it allow to have a mobile connection because it does not require line of sight a thing that 2.4GHZ require and also with 0.5W on 70CM you can get much bigger distance then with a regular WIFI gear
----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Fort" eric.fort@gmail.com To: "AMPRNet working group" 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 6:06 AM Subject: Re: [44net] a common vendor neutral hardware/software stack for 44net. - was Re: hardware vs. software
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ 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
Lucky hamradio and amrp is not limited to the USA so most of us do not have to worry about the USA limitations.
In region 1 we got between 6 and 10 Mhz and usualy only 1 Mhz is in active use leaving plenty of room for high speed data modes especialy if FHSS is used.
73 Andre PE1RDW
Op 06-07-13 07:34, K7VE - John schreef:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ There were a couple of them at DCC Atlanta last year and they chewed up the 70cm band. US regulations limit to 56kbaud per carrier within 100 khz channel on 70cm. 97.307:
(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.
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
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Ronen Pinchukdrorap@netvision.net.ilwrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ First of all it uses FHSS so it is not so interfeer to the other users ... second the bandwith can be adjusted (on the throughput of course) up to 2 MHZ if i remember correct but for me the big benefit is that it allow to have a mobile connection because it does not require line of sight a thing that 2.4GHZ require and also with 0.5W on 70CM you can get much bigger distance then with a regular WIFI gear
I forgot to add that 2400 to 2450 is being taken away more and more, we for exsample are only allowed to use it for satalite communication making using modified wifigear for that band useless for us. Op 06-07-13 13:00, PE1RDW schreef:
Lucky hamradio and amrp is not limited to the USA so most of us do not have to worry about the USA limitations.
In region 1 we got between 6 and 10 Mhz and usualy only 1 Mhz is in active use leaving plenty of room for high speed data modes especialy if FHSS is used.
73 Andre PE1RDW
Op 06-07-13 07:34, K7VE - John schreef:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ There were a couple of them at DCC Atlanta last year and they chewed up the 70cm band. US regulations limit to 56kbaud per carrier within 100 khz channel on 70cm. 97.307:
(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.
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
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Ronen Pinchukdrorap@netvision.net.ilwrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ First of all it uses FHSS so it is not so interfeer to the other users ... second the bandwith can be adjusted (on the throughput of course) up to 2 MHZ if i remember correct but for me the big benefit is that it allow to have a mobile connection because it does not require line of sight a thing that 2.4GHZ require and also with 0.5W on 70CM you can get much bigger distance then with a regular WIFI gear
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 22:34:21 -0700, K7VE - John k7ve@k7ve.org wrote:
There were a couple of them at DCC Atlanta last year and they chewed up the 70cm band. US regulations limit to 56kbaud per carrier within 100 khz channel on 70cm. 97.307:
[snipped]
97.307 doesn't apply to FHSS or DSSS. The applicable section is 97.311.
Spread spectrum is ideal for band sharing but FCC requires records be kept.
97.311(c)(3): Maintain a record, convertible to the original information (voice, text, image, etc.) of all spread spectrum communications transmitted.
97.311(d): The transmitter power must not exceed 100 W under any circumstances. If more than 1 W is used, automatic transmitter control shall limit output power to that which is required for the communication. This shall be determined by the use of the ratio, measured at the receiver, of the received energy per user data bit (Eb) to the sum of the received power spectral densities of noise (N0) and co-channel interference (I0). Average transmitter power over 1 W shall be automatically adjusted to maintain an Eb/ (N0 + I0) ratio of no more than 23 dB at the intended receiver.
SS is allowed on all UHF bands for the entire band. The greatest impediment to development of SS in the U.S. ham community is the record keeping requirement.
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Geoff Joy geoff@windowmeister.com wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 22:34:21 -0700, K7VE - John k7ve@k7ve.org wrote:
There were a couple of them at DCC Atlanta last year and they chewed up
the
70cm band. US regulations limit to 56kbaud per carrier within 100 khz channel on 70cm. 97.307:
[snipped]
97.307 doesn't apply to FHSS or DSSS. The applicable section is 97.311.
Spread spectrum is ideal for band sharing but FCC requires records be kept.
97.311(c)(3): Maintain a record, convertible to the original information (voice, text, image, etc.) of all spread spectrum communications transmitted.
97.311(d): The transmitter power must not exceed 100 W under any circumstances. If more than 1 W is used, automatic transmitter control shall limit output power to that which is required for the communication. This shall be determined by the use of the ratio, measured at the receiver, of the received energy per user data bit (Eb) to the sum of the received power spectral densities of noise (N0) and co-channel interference (I0). Average transmitter power over 1 W shall be automatically adjusted to maintain an Eb/ (N0 + I0) ratio of no more than 23 dB at the intended receiver.
SS is allowed on all UHF bands for the entire band. The greatest impediment to development of SS in the U.S. ham community is the record keeping requirement. -- Geoff Joy - ke6qh - AmprNet IP Address Coordinator for San Bernardino & Riverside Counties. geoff@windomeister.com
What kind of records need be kept though? It would seem to me that for
802.11 type stuff the needed records would be minimal such as the KEY and SSID. Note intent is a major piece here as some would argue that using a key is cryptography and cryptography is not allowed. The difference here is one of intent. If you offer to make the key available on a need to know basis (i.e. The FCC to be rules compliant, and the amateur community that wants to connect) I could even go as far as agreeing that cryptography is being used but it's being used for authentication not obfuscation which is what the FCC is concerned about. In our case Authentication is a good thing as we would not want just any non amateur with WiFi gear hopping on our network. I do not think we need to log all the actual traffic, only have records enough to turn the recieved bitstream into something usable for monitoring and enforcement.
Eric AF6EP
On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 12:08:10 -0700, Eric Fort eric.fort@gmail.com wrote:
What kind of records need be kept though? It would seem to me that for 802.11 type stuff the needed records would be minimal such as the KEY and SSID. Note intent is a major piece here as some would argue that using a key is cryptography and cryptography is not allowed.
In SS the chip sequence is pseudo-random, usually a LFSR with known taps. IIRC the FCC specified the register length and taps of acceptable sequences for amateur use but it's been years since I last researched it. I was investigating a CDMA scheme for voice UHF multiplex links in 1992 or so but I abandoned it.
Yes, the chip sequence is related to crypto but it's not crypto for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of the communications and is specifically allowed by the rules.
You're looking at the entirety of 97.311(c)(3) "Maintain a record, convertible to the original information (voice, text, image, etc.) of all spread spectrum communications transmitted."
IANAL, but I interpret that to mean you must maintain a "record" of the emitted signal and all the content and methods used to produce that signal. Which makes it fairly useless for something like TCP/IP traffic of any volume since you'd have to keep many GB of "record" if you are doing it full time or automatically. My guess is that when FCC promulgated the rules they perceived hams to be experimenting with and researching SS rather than using it for actual traffic or mass producing devices for it. In that scenario hams would be sending brief messages in a lab or across town and measuring performance.
I think you were referring to the Doodle labs (and competitor) cards. Problem is that they cannot speak to other manufacturer's cards - thus not interoperable to everyone. http://www.tapr.org/pdf/DCC2012-Experimenting-...-Wireless-Networking-in-420...
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Ronen Pinchuk drorap@netvision.net.il wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ There is a company that makes PCMCIA Cards that work on the 70cm ham band give out up to 0.5 watts and give high speed data rate (dont remember exectly how much but few mb/s ) that can serve for wireless link for tha ham community .... Regards Ronen - 4Z4ZQ http://www.ronen.org
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesse Hindmarsh" jesse@hindmarsh.cc To: "AMPRNet working group" 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu Cc: "AMPRNet working group" 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2013 1:06 AM Subject: Re: [44net] a common vendor neutral hardware/software stack for 44net. - was Re: hardware vs. software
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Eric
I like your thinking. I have looked into similar solutions such as
Ubiquiti wireless devices. They have wireless devices that can be configured out of the ISM band and into the ham band with no mods. Plus they are in the sub $100 range making them a viable option. I have also played with some converted Linksys devices running HSMM-MESH. All great in theory, but in my case, I am an island. There are no hams in my region that would see the benefit or interest in such endeavors. They are more than happy to get their DX and go to bed.
Anyone in Northeast PA want to link up with some kind of RF/wireless and
extend the Amprnet?
Jesse
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
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
-
Don Fanning -
Eric Fort -
Geoff Joy -
Jesse Hindmarsh -
K7VE - John -
PE1RDW -
Ronen Pinchuk