On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:28:54 -0400, Woodrick, Ed
ewoodr...@ed-com.com said:
Easy solution, stop callsign routing. Use repeater linking instead.
Problem solved.
Ed WA4YIH
That'd be silly. If I want to KNOW for sure the call made it to the
other side, and get a RESPONSE from the network
On Sun, 17 May 2009 09:33:33 +1000, Tony Langdon vk3...@gmail.com
said:
At 01:16 AM 5/17/2009, you wrote:
John is right on the money here.
-
Tactical Call Sign SOP:
A tactical call sign is entered in the 4 digit comment field after a
station's legal call sign:
This would seem
At 05:22 PM 5/17/2009, you wrote:
That'd be silly. If I want to KNOW for sure the call made it to the
other side, and get a RESPONSE from the network that says so, the ONLY
option for that is callsign routing.
This is true, DPlus does not give any concrete indications that
you're getting
At 05:31 PM 5/17/2009, you wrote:
And how does that work when attempting to use callsign squelch?
Hmm, I'd have thought that callsign squelch would be generally an
impediment to emergency operations. I know that if I was an operator
on duty, I'd much rather an open channel, so I could be
@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Nate Duehr
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:22 AM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:28:54 -0400, Woodrick, Ed
ewoodr...@ed-com.commailto:ewoodrick
At 09:33 PM 5/17/2009, you wrote:
We've had the discussion many times before.
Last year at Dayton, everyone was having to source route to the
local repeater to talk. No one was able to have a conversation
because people kept barging in because they could not hear the
activity on the local
At 09:23 AM 5/18/2009, you wrote:
You said multiple country/repeater conversations aren't possible with
callsign routing -- False.
OK, that's one trick I would like to know, and without using
multicast - because of the administrator intervention required, I
consider this feature to have
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:53 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
I absolutely stand by my statements.
Embedded...
From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Nate Duehr
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 7:23 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
Ed
Tony Langdon wrote:
At 09:23 AM 5/18/2009, you wrote:
You said multiple country/repeater conversations aren't possible with
callsign routing -- False.
OK, that's one trick I would like to know, and without using
multicast - because of the administrator intervention required, I
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:53 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
Please TRIM your replies or set your email program not to include the original
message in reply
unless needed for clarity
John is right on the money here.
-
Tactical Call Sign SOP:
A tactical call sign is entered in the 4 digit comment field after a station's
legal call sign:
MY: NAØG /EOC
Such tactical calls can be readily pre-programmed in the MYCALL memory of most
radios.
With this procedure, your
At 04:31 AM 5/16/2009, you wrote:
Has anyone actually tried that? I could brush up on my Novell skills
from 1992.
Don't see why it wouldn't work. :)
Never saw a more stable fileserver in my entire IT/telco professional
career as a Novell 3.11 server. :-)
I certainly can't argue with that
At 01:50 PM 5/16/2009, you wrote:
They each have their purpose, we just need better gateway software.
Agreed. If implemented right, linking and callsign routing could
coexist, if the software was written to allow this mix. In addition,
controls to block either would be handy for certain uses.
At 01:16 AM 5/17/2009, you wrote:
John is right on the money here.
-
Tactical Call Sign SOP:
A tactical call sign is entered in the 4 digit comment field after a
station's legal call sign:
This would seem to be the most sensible way.
73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:18:26 -0700, John Hays j...@hays.org said:
Here is my thought on this.
Radios should be identified by their official callsign (and optional
designator character), tactical / special event callsigns can be put
into the 4 char comment, on voice, or in the message
On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:31:17 -, john_ke5c k...@hot.rr.com said:
I don't like the idea of filtering bogus callsigns. What might be
bogus to you, might be my special event's tactical callsigns.
(There's nothing stopping anyone from registering SAG1, SAG1, NET,
EVENT, etc.)
I don't
On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:33:22 -0700, John Hays j...@hays.org said:
I don't the reason for it, but I suspect that it was to support DD
callsign to IP mapping and was just carried over to DV. Which is
silly anyway, since the DD format is Ethernet encapsulation, not IP
encapsulation.
--- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, Nate Duehr n...@... wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:18:26 -0700, John Hays j...@... said:
Here is my thought on this.
Radios should be identified by their official callsign (and optional
designator character), tactical / special event callsigns
did 40 years ago. Do We!
From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of k7ve
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 12:49 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
--- In dstar_digital
Easy solution, stop callsign routing. Use repeater linking instead. Problem
solved.
Ed WA4YIH
From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Nate Duehr
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 2:29 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: 880 vs 800
(was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
I think in the real world you would find that quite often a tactical
callsign is in use in multiple locations. (For example, during a hurricane in
the Gulf coast, multiple EOC stations may be on D-STAR at the same time.) In
the dynamic design, you really
: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 2:29 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
Case in point: D-Plus linking is great, but it wasn't
I am back home and playing with my 80. I believe it is the same as 880
in terms of callsign settings.
Here is my findings:
- A gateway callsign at RPT2 is taken away when it is in the DR mode.
- In the normal VFO/memory mode, it stays there.
- Kerchunking with
UR=CQCQCQ
RPT1=JP1YJX
Ishikawason, nei ha ma?
In the US we use the RPT2 (R2) setting for those that have GPS connected
to their radio, rather it be a local contact or via the gateway, for general
beaconing of their position by way of D-PRS. Now with that in mind,
in plain sight, one would not really care if the
Any idea when the JARL will allow you all to install D-Plus???
As far as the R2 goes,
DPLUS: with R2 ON, this will tell the RP2C to pass your data stream to the
gw.
If you where on a dongle, you connect to a US gw, if we DO NOT have R2
enabled or ON,
you will not hear our transmission. When
Evans, thanks for the info.
DPLUS: with R2 ON, this will tell the RP2C to pass your data stream to the gw.
If you where on a dongle, you connect to a US gw, if we DO NOT have R2
enabled or ON,
you will not hear our transmission. When you omit R2 your data stream goes
from
the receiver to
://www.polkemcomm.org http://www.polkemcomm.org/
_
From: Evans F. Mitchell KD4EFM [mailto:kd4e...@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 9:11 AM
To: 'dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
Any idea when the JARL will allow you all
@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
Any idea when the JARL will allow you all to install D-Plus???
As far as the R2 goes,
DPLUS: with R2 ON, this will tell the RP2C to pass your data stream
to the
gw.
If you where on a dongle, you connect
, May 14, 2009 9:11 AM
To: 'dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
Any idea when the JARL will allow you all to install D-Plus???
As far as the R2 goes,
DPLUS: with R2 ON, this will tell the RP2C to pass your data stream
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 1:04 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
If the controller firmware would pass ALL TRAFFIC to the gateway the
whole G port thing could go away. A smarter piece of gateway
software could determine
%40verizon.net net]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 9:11 AM
To: 'dstar_digital@ mailto:%27dstar_digital%40yahoogroups.com
yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
Any idea when the JARL will allow you all to install D-Plus???
As far as the R2 goes
On Thu, 14 May 2009 15:33:29 +0900, JI1BQW ji1...@mbr.nifty.com
said:
(Thinking about it, this MAY NOT be considered a bug in Japan
May not be.
Actually I felt a bit odd when I came across some English materials on
the Internet suggesting that you always program the gateway callsign
On Thu, 14 May 2009 08:30:12 -0400, Evans F. Mitchell KD4EFM
kd4e...@verizon.net said:
Ishikawason, nei ha ma?
In the US we use the RPT2 (R2) setting for those that have GPS connected
to their radio, rather it be a local contact or via the gateway, for
general
beaconing of their position
On May 14, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Nate Duehr wrote:
(FIlters at the gateway could manage who could and could not use a
given gateway - and callsign pattern matching, e.g. regex, could
filter out most bogus callsigns)
I don't like the idea of filtering bogus callsigns. What might be
bogus to
I don't like the idea of filtering bogus callsigns. What might be
bogus to you, might be my special event's tactical callsigns.
(There's nothing stopping anyone from registering SAG1, SAG1, NET,
EVENT, etc.)
I don't care if this is politically incorrect or insensitive, but if you want
, May 14, 2009 5:33 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
On May 14, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Nate Duehr wrote:
Agreed. I always assumed registration was to meet regulatory
requirements somewhere, but the more I thought about
On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:57:22 -0700, John Hays j...@hays.org said:
Nate gave a long answer that addresses some of the variables, for a
short demo of 5W at 100KM listen and see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyYhLtS-0gE
If you can afford the difference between a 2200 + DSTAR board and an
38 matches
Mail list logo
