a common vendor neutral hardware/software stack for 44net. - was Re: hardware vs. software
28 Jun
2013
28 Jun
'13
11:18 p.m.
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;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
29 Jun
29 Jun
12:06 a.m.
New subject: a common vendor neutral hardware/software stack for 44net. - was Re: hardware vs. software
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
6 Jul
6 Jul
5:41 a.m.
New subject: a common vendor neutral hardware/software stack for 44net. - was Re: hardware vs. software
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(a)hindmarsh.cc>
To: "AMPRNet working group" <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
Cc: "AMPRNet working group" <44net(a)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(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
5:06 a.m.
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(a)netvision.net.il>wrote;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(a)hindmarsh.cc>
To: "AMPRNet working group" <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
Cc: "AMPRNet working group" <44net(a)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
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
(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(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
6:54 a.m.
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(a)gmail.com>
To: "AMPRNet working group" <44net(a)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(a)netvision.net.il>wrote;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(a)hindmarsh.cc>
> To: "AMPRNet working group" <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
> Cc: "AMPRNet working group" <44net(a)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(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
> > > http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
> > > http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
> >
> > _________________________________________
> > 44Net mailing list
> > 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
> > http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
> > http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
> >
>
6:34 a.m.
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(a)netvision.net.il>wrote;wrote:
(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(a)gmail.com>
To: "AMPRNet working group" <44net(a)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
noon
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 Pinchuk<drorap(a)netvision.net.il>wrote;wrote:
> (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
>
12:22 p.m.
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
> Pinchuk<drorap(a)netvision.net.il>wrote;wrote:
>
>> (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
6:02 p.m.
New subject: a common vendor neutral hardware/software stack for 44net. - was Re: hardware vs. software
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 22:34:21 -0700, K7VE - John <k7ve(a)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(a)windomeister.com
8:08 p.m.
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Geoff Joy <geoff(a)windowmeister.com> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 22:34:21 -0700, K7VE - John <k7ve(a)k7ve.org> wrote:
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
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(a)windomeister.com
What kind of records need be kept though? It would seem to me that for
10:53 p.m.
New subject: a common vendor neutral hardware/software stack for 44net. - was Re: hardware vs. software
On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 12:08:10 -0700, Eric Fort <eric.fort(a)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.
6:04 p.m.
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-42…
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Ronen Pinchuk <drorap(a)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(a)hindmarsh.cc>
To: "AMPRNet working group" <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
Cc: "AMPRNet working group" <44net(a)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
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
(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(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
3957
days inactive
3965
days old
11 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Don Fanning -
Eric Fort -
Geoff Joy -
Jesse Hindmarsh -
K7VE - John -
PE1RDW -
Ronen Pinchuk