RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[justin Mann]

Yes they did in terms of it's development.  After I've called them, I've
gotten answers like "We'll see what we can do, but we will make no
commitment"  In my experience, these have been answers of lack of forsight,
and pure just not caring. Icom surely nows there are blind hams that use
these radios.  You can take the Mark II and the other radios that have
speech synthesizer modules as proof.  It is not fair that  a ham who is
blind should be excluded like that.  If Icom is unwilling to make the
provision, thena blind ham who buys a d-star radio needs to know how they
might make the radio more accessible.  

 

  _  

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Ray T. Mahorney
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 6:03 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

 






your comment suggests that yet again Icomm missed the boat as far as
accessibility of the new 
radios.
- Original Message - 
From: "justin Mann " mailto:w9fyi%40cox.net> >
To: mailto:dstar_digital%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 00:13
Subject: RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

Your argument about having to program your radio driving 70mph down the road
sure bolsters my case that icom oughtta be putting a voice module in both
their hts, and mobile rigs.

_

From: dstar_digital@ <mailto:dstar_digital%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digital@
<mailto:dstar_digital%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Tony Langdon
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:53 PM
To: dstar_digital@ <mailto:dstar_digital%40yahoogroups.com> 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. ThanksYahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Ray T. Mahorney]

your comment suggests that yet again Icomm missed the boat as far as 
accessibility of the new 
radios.
- Original Message - 
From: "justin Mann " 
To: 
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 00:13
Subject: RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)


Your argument about having to program your radio driving 70mph down the road
sure bolsters my case that icom oughtta be putting a voice module  in both
their hts, and mobile rigs.



  _

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Tony Langdon
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.  ThanksYahoo! Groups Links

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Nate Duehr]

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
> consider this feature to have extremely limited use.
> 
> Not nit picking, just want to know any tricks I don't know. ;)

I was definitely thinking of multicast.  But saying "it's not possible" 
is incorrect.  It *is* possible, with admin interaction and a multicast 
group per-arranged.  Saying it's not as EASY, is correct.

Nate WY0X

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Tony Langdon]

At 12:16 PM 5/18/2009, you wrote:

>I was definitely thinking of multicast.  But saying "it's not possible"
>is incorrect.  It *is* possible, with admin interaction and a multicast
>group per-arranged.  Saying it's not as EASY, is correct.

True, in the strictest sense, but in the sense that the majority of 
amateur communications is either not pre-arranged, or in the case of 
scheduled nets, the systems participating are not set in stone in 
advance, then it's "impossible" for common amateur scenarios.

In amateur VoIP, I usually deal with the following scenarios:

1.  Point to point.  This is where callsign routing in D-STAR is at 
its best, and on D-STAR, this is the mode I generally use for point 
to point QSOs.  Callsign routing is particularly useful, when you're 
not sure where the other station is located.  Another advantage of 
callsign routing is that it is stateless, so you don't need to 
remember to tear the connection down at the end, because there wasn't 
one.  Just remove the UR callsign (in my setup, as easy as a flick of 
the VFO knob), when you're done.  I setup my radio that the memory 
has no UR callsign, so I can't inadvertently route to a distant system.

2.  Scheduled net, no fixed participation list, may be banned/muted 
systems.  This covers nets such as the VoIP WX Net.  The only net I 
have participated on D-STAR that is anything like this is the SE WX 
Net.  IRLP and Echolink also allow for stations to be banned or 
muted.  This is less of an issue on D-STAR, because most of those 
blocks are for technical issues that D-STAR doesn't have (repeater 
bounce, intermods, etc).  DPlus is the only D-STAR game in town here.

3.  Free form, multi-reflector networks.  Some of the D-STAR 
reflectors probably come close to this, albeit on a single 
reflector.  The archetype of this sort of operation is the VK/Ireland 
IRLP/Echolink network, which has at least two IRLP reflectors and 3 
Echolink conferences participating.  Occasionally, one or more of the 
connected systems is dropped off the network to segregate scheduled 
net traffic, usually by automated means (cron jobs, etc).  Again, 
this is definitely NOT something that could be covered by 
multicast.  The closest in the D-STAR world are those reflectors 
where general ragchewing is commonplace, and again, DPlus is the tool 
for the job.

You can see why multicast doesn't do a lot for me. ;)

So for 90% or more of possible scenarios, it's "not possible".  For 
the other < 10%, you can use multicast. ;)  And I ruled out multicast 
as a viable option, because I can't think of a net I participate in 
(on any mode, not just D-STAR), where all systems involved would be 
known in advance.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Woodrick, Ed]

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,

Some of the things in your latest post 

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[justin Mann]

Your argument about having to program your radio driving 70mph down the road
sure bolsters my case that icom oughtta be putting a voice module  in both
their hts, and mobile rigs.  

 

  _  

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Tony Langdon
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:53 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

 

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Tony Langdon]

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 extremely limited use.

Not nit picking, just want to know any tricks I don't know. ;)

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Tony Langdon]

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 repeater.

I've experienced this as well.

>That's something that just WILL NOT HAPPEN, no way, no how, with 
>callsign routing. There have been three or four way conversations 
>with people from different states and different countries. That CAN 
>NOT HAPPEN with callsign routing.

That's one of the issues I've had with callsign routing.  I do use 
it, but in its proper place.

>If I am having a conversation on a repeater with someone local and 
>someone source routes in, they don't know an existing QSO is on the 
>repeater, even if the wait 15 minutes. The only way that they can 
>find out is if they keep transmitting and watching their display and 
>eventually see the error code come back. For me to tell them that 
>the repeater Is busy, I've got to program my radio as I'm driving 70 
>mph down the road. And then make a call, and then change the 
>programming on my radio. A process that usually takes a couple of minutes.

Murphy's law says you'll squeeze in between the overs of those who 
are using the remote gateway.  I've seen this sort of freaky timing 
in IRLP and Echolink, and I have seen it in D-STAR as well.  Of 
course, you will get no busy indication if this happens. ;)

>As one of the managers of one of the largest nets, I have a direct 
>and constant exposure to the issues and while repeaters do sometime 
>drop off, the occurrence has dropped dramatically. We have MANY nets 
>in which we don't have repeaters drop off the air. And then 
>periodically we have one during which there is obvious network 
>congestion and we lose a couple of repeaters during the net, but 
>they reconnect and life goes on.

I must start dropping in on your net again, now that hurricane season 
is just around the corner. :)

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Nate Duehr]

Ed,

Some of the things in your latest post are patently false, but you're 
now down to making personal attacks and assumptions about me that mean 
it's time to end the conversation.  You're obviously not ready to have 
an adult conversation about the real issues at hand.  You can't stick to 
the topics I brought up, and ignored most of them in your reply.

Your original posting you said was "tongue-in-cheek" had no emoticons or 
other indications that it was a joke, and you were saying that people 
just shouldn't callsign route and only use D-Plus links.

I don't think you were joking at all.  I replied saying that was silly, 
and that started this whole thing.  You wouldn't be so defensive about 
it if you were really kidding.

You're continuing to vigorously defend D-Plus' built in problems and 
won't admit it has just as many problems as callsign routing... so 
what's the point?  You're obviously not going to be swayed by facts.

You said multiple country/repeater conversations aren't possible with 
callsign routing -- False.

You said you can't reply to someone callsign routing to your repeater to 
tell them the repeater's busy without programming in callsigns -- also 
False.

You said that dropouts of transmissions doesn't bother you and then went 
on to discuss changes that Robin has made, when there's been no code 
changes to D-Plus on the Gateways for months -- also False or made up.

Generally, you're just not ready for this discussion, yet.  You're not 
willing to stick to the technical pros/cons of both systems, so I'm 
ending this.

So if there's no reality/truth in the conversation, why have it at all?

I think we both agree that both systems have pros/cons, but you've got 
some pink sunglasses on there when you look at D-Plus, and you take them 
off when you look at callsign routing.

Nate WY0X

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Woodrick, Ed]

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 repeater.

This year there were a number of good QSOs because it was linked to the 
reflector and everyone could hear the activity before talking.

You say that because you look at your display and see the response that you 
have an ironclad knowledge that your signal went through. But that's not a 
possibility for mobile stations who should keep their eyes on the road. And my 
HT has been on my belt all weekend, I'm not lifting it every time I have to 
talk. I've been able to talk around the world this weekend without EVER looking 
at my display, nor changing a channel. I've had a number of QSOs, I've people 
from all over the place. I've heard both sides of the conversations.

That's something that just WILL NOT HAPPEN, no way, no how, with callsign 
routing. There have been three or four way conversations with people from 
different states and different countries. That CAN NOT HAPPEN with callsign 
routing.

We have the Southeaster Weather Net where 25+ repeaters and 50+ users link up. 
There's less doubling here than on a FM local repeater net. You CAN NOT DO THIS 
with callsign routing.

If I am having a conversation on a repeater with someone local and someone 
source routes in, they don't know an existing QSO is on the repeater, even if 
the wait 15 minutes. The only way that they can find out is if they keep 
transmitting and watching their display and eventually see the error code come 
back. For me to tell them that the repeater Is busy, I've got to program my 
radio as I'm driving 70 mph down the road. And then make a call, and then 
change the programming on my radio. A process that usually takes a couple of 
minutes.

My comment was meant as a tongue in cheek response and I didn't intend to 
inflame you so badly. But indeed the response stands, Source routing has a 
number of issues for which this is indeed a case. And not source routing is 
indeed a solution. About the only one that you've found as a negative for 
linking is that the first QSO might be lost. And your premise is that people 
link and don't listen at all, that's just not the situation. A LOT of people 
listen and it's up to the seasoned operators to show users how to do it 
correctly.

As far as signals dropping into nowhere, that does indeed SOMETIME occur and is 
often related to network congestion. It is a known problem and there have been 
a number of things that Robin has done to help with the situation. BUT, since 
you don't use it that much, you probably don't have much experience and are 
speaking from what could be older experience.

As one of the managers of one of the largest nets, I have a direct and constant 
exposure to the issues and while repeaters do sometime drop off, the occurrence 
has dropped dramatically. We have MANY nets in which we don't have repeaters 
drop off the air. And then periodically we have one during which there is 
obvious network congestion and we lose a couple of repeaters during the net, 
but they reconnect and life goes on.

Ed WA4YIH



From: dstar_digital@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"
mailto:ewoodrick%40ed-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 that says so, the ONLY
option for that is callsign routing.

The day D-Plus linking is CONFIRMED with a "UR" back on the radio, you'd
have an argument. Until then, they're both viable, and only one is
guaranteed to show up at the other end.

Try listening in on on a Reflector-based D-Plus Net sometime and see how
many stations double and can't figure out that's what happened. It's
REALLY obvious when you listen/watch for it.

Another common mistake on Reflectors: People don't listen for AT LEAST
THREE MINUTES before transmitting after linking in. D-Plus is slightly
busted in that it can't "pick up in the middle of a stream" when you
link your local repeater into a Reflector and there's already a
transmission taking place. You hear NOTHING.

Since the timeout timers on the repeaters are 3 minutes... the only
GUARANTEED way the "frequency is clear" after you link into a Reflector,
is to WAIT 3 MINUTES. No one does it. You hear people bust into
on-goin

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Tony Langdon]

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 attentive to 
whatever's happening, and not accidentally hit the PTT before 
listening.  Proper procedure would require one to open the squelch, 
listen, then call Net Control.  I prefer to know the status of the 
channel, before I touch the radio.

Visual indication of callsigns in general is of limited use, because 
my eyes would normally be occupied with a message form or 
similar.   Exception of course would be if I was using D-RATS, rather 
than voice, where it's all visual.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Tony Langdon]

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 anywhere.  However, it is an extremely useful addition.

>Try listening in on on a Reflector-based D-Plus Net sometime and see how
>many stations double and can't figure out that's what happened.  It's
>REALLY obvious when you listen/watch for it.

I found the DV Dongle useful for watching what's happening on a reflector.


>Another common mistake on Reflectors:  People don't listen for AT LEAST
>THREE MINUTES before transmitting after linking in.  D-Plus is slightly
>busted in that it can't "pick up in the middle of a stream" when you
>link your local repeater into a Reflector and there's already a
>transmission taking place.  You hear NOTHING.

That's a biggie.  Who's going to wait 3 minutes?  It's a battle to 
get people to listen for 15-30 seconds on IRLP, before 
calling.  Hopefully, it will one day be possible to resolve this 
issue, and have DPlus send traffic to newly connected stations within 
a few seconds of the connection being made

>It's not fully-baked yet.  Callsign routing is.

True.  There's a number of situations that I don't really like 
callsign routing for, but it is the better developed method for using gateways.

>As I've said before, I use both.  But your zealoutry (you've made this

Me too.  I probably use each method 50% of the time.  If I know who 
I'm calling, or which system I want to call, I'll generally use 
callsign routing.  I generally use DPlus linking mainly for nets on 
reflectors or DV Dongle use.

>For one repeater to one repeater "linking" it's mainly attractive to
>people because it requires less brainpower to operate, and considering
>that callsign routing doesn't really require much brainpower, it's kinda
>funny really.  How hard is it to keep your regular contact's repeaters
>in a memory channel as a "/repeater" route?  Not hard at all.

I don't use a lot of routes, so I just have the setup to access the 
local gateway in memory, and use the UR callsign memory to dial up a 
destination I've previously used, or manually add it, if there is a 
new one.  For incoming calls, I'll try one touch reply first.  If 
that doesn't work, I have to assume it's a DPluc link, unless the 
other end gives their origin gateway.

>I think also from a human-training point of view, it adds confusion.
>People start to think the ONLY way to call another system is via D-Plus
>commands, and that's just not accurate.  If they want to KNOW their call
>went through, they really should be using callsign routes and
>understanding them.

I work a little differently, so I can swap between techiques as the 
situation fits.  For everyone else, they just need to learn both 
methods, and when to use which. :)  I know, that seems hard for a lot 
of people, but we're stuck with that, until there's suitable, sane 
interlocks that prevent people from doing the _really_ loopy things, 
and telling them when things don't work as they intended (e.g. busy, 
in link, etc).


>Is it nice to have Dongle users and Reflectors, sure.  Is D-Plus the
>answer to all routing/calling for everything?  Not yet.  Not by a long
>shot.

Agree, but they are useful. :)  Time will see big improvements, I'm sure.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Nate Duehr]

On Sun, 17 May 2009 09:33:33 +1000, "Tony Langdon" 
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 to be the most sensible way.

And how does that work when attempting to use callsign squelch?

Y'all really missed that (or chose to ignore it) in my reply.   Tactical
callsigns really only have a "purpose" as a way to activate callsign
squelch for a pre-arranged event.  Yes, it can be done with real
callsigns, but if you're attempting to leverage the technology to make
your event run BETTER... putting a comment in the comment field is
generally useless.  

Have you seen how long it takes an ID800H to get around to displaying
the comment field?

Nate WY0X
--
  Nate Duehr
  n...@natetech.com

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Nate Duehr]

On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:28:54 -0400, "Woodrick, Ed"
 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 that says so, the ONLY
option for that is callsign routing.

The day D-Plus linking is CONFIRMED with a "UR" back on the radio, you'd
have an argument.  Until then, they're both viable, and only one is
guaranteed to show up at the other end.

Try listening in on on a Reflector-based D-Plus Net sometime and see how
many stations double and can't figure out that's what happened.  It's
REALLY obvious when you listen/watch for it.

Another common mistake on Reflectors:  People don't listen for AT LEAST
THREE MINUTES before transmitting after linking in.  D-Plus is slightly
busted in that it can't "pick up in the middle of a stream" when you
link your local repeater into a Reflector and there's already a
transmission taking place.  You hear NOTHING.

Since the timeout timers on the repeaters are 3 minutes... the only
GUARANTEED way the "frequency is clear" after you link into a Reflector,
is to WAIT 3 MINUTES.  No one does it.  You hear people bust into
on-going QSO's on REF001C *ALL THE TIME* because of this.

It's not fully-baked yet.  Callsign routing is.

As I've said before, I use both.  But your zealoutry (you've made this
argument before, and don't seem to care about the above-mentioned before
BUGS in it) about it is misplaced.  D-Plus isn't "right" yet.  If Robin
can't find a way to have it respond with "UR" properly, it'll NEVER be
right.  It's a hackish add-on that works, but isn't engineered as well
as the VERY VENERABLE callsign routing.  

For one repeater to one repeater "linking" it's mainly attractive to
people because it requires less brainpower to operate, and considering
that callsign routing doesn't really require much brainpower, it's kinda
funny really.  How hard is it to keep your regular contact's repeaters
in a memory channel as a "/repeater" route?  Not hard at all.

The other major draw is Reflectors, but as pointed out above, the way
it's implemented today, people won't wait long enough (one full
transmission's maximum time) to see if the frequency is clear when they
link in.  I hear it all the time on busy Reflectors.  

The other thing you hear CONSTANTLY on a busy Reflector is whole
transmissions disappearing and people saying, "Not sure where you went,
but we didn't hear any of that transmission, Bob."  No one has done an
adequate investigation into the cause.

I'm not anti-DPlus or pro-callsign routes or anything like that.  But
I'm a support tech who always calls it like it is... D-Plus linking has
problems still.  

I think also from a human-training point of view, it adds confusion. 
People start to think the ONLY way to call another system is via D-Plus
commands, and that's just not accurate.  If they want to KNOW their call
went through, they really should be using callsign routes and
understanding them.

Is it nice to have Dongle users and Reflectors, sure.  Is D-Plus the
answer to all routing/calling for everything?  Not yet.  Not by a long
shot. 

Nate WY0X
--
  Nate Duehr
  n...@natetech.com

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Tony Langdon]

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

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Tony Langdon]

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.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Tony Langdon]

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 one.  I remember the stark contrast 
when the company I worked for at the time switched from Novell 3.11 
to Windows NT.  The Novell server was so stable that I only recall 
one or two occasions in 2 years when anyone had to restart it.  It 
was an old P90 box that just ran and ran, and ran, and ran. 
:)  The DOS client was a different matter, if the network connection 
dropped for more than a fraction of a second, it was hosed.  That was 
fun in the days of 10Base2 networks. ;)

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[John Hays]

They each have their purpose, we just need better gateway software.

--
John D. Hays
206-801-0820
Sent from my iPhone

On May 15, 2009, at 20:28, "Woodrick, Ed"  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Easy solution, stop callsign routing. Use repeater linking instead.  
> Problem solved.
>
> Ed WA4YIH
>
> From: 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 implemented in a
> way to avoid the problems associated with mixing it with callsign
> routing. I callsign route to a repeater that's involved in a D-Plus
> link and (in my opinion) "bad" things happen.
>
> A sure sign that an attempt to make an already-working system  
> "easier",
> actually makes it harder in the corner-cases, but "easier" in the
> general sense.
>
> Not trying to embarass anyone, but here's another example: I had an
> e-mail today from one of our local leadership people saying, "Please
> keep Port B clear for an event tomorrow." Okay, well.. let me explain
> here... in a callsign-routed "always on" network, there's no  
> "keeping it
> clear" unless you want me to kill off D-Plus and the Gateway for ALL  
> of
> the modules... your Net Controller instead NEEDS to know how to  
> reply to
> a link made inbound from somewhere else and politely disconnect it, or
> respond to an interloping Dongle user, or how to hit the one-touch and
> reply to a callsign-routed "CQ" and explain there's a Net going on.  
> The
> network is ALWAYS on in D-STAR... unless you're directing me to shut
> down the Gateway... was my reply...
>
> That's my opinion anyway... "Power to the people" so to speak. LOL!
>
> Nate WY0X
> --
> Nate Duehr
> n...@natetech.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Woodrick, Ed]

Agreed, callsigns should be the real callsign. Even in AX.25 packet, the 
callsign was the callsign. An alias field was added to support tactical calls.

If you use MYEOC as a tactical call, then unless it is registered, it can't 
source route or link repeaters.  And from an EOC, that's something that you 
might want to do.

You also have to think that we John was alluding to, D-STAR is a much wider 
impact communications medium than a VHF/UHF Packet or voice system. You don't 
see much use of tactical callsigns on HF because it too has a wide impacting 
implication.

And don't forget that many county names are used multiple times across the US, 
so collisions can definitely be a problem and one county registering their 
tactical call before another wouldn't be really fair.

Maybe the more appropriate action would be to get callsigns for the EOCs. Many 
might already have a RACES call, but you can get additional callsigns for your 
organization to act as your tactical callsigns.

Ed WA4YIH


From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of k7ve
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 2:49 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: 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 don't have a database of who's using what 
callsign (though such a design would probably have query tools) I see this 
design being very dynamic with routing lookups "on demand" with caching. So the 
local "gateway" sees your local special callsign and marks it as being on local 
repeater "X" and reports to the central data servers, that "EOC" is now on 
repeater "X" (based on the "MY EOC" field). The gateway also services another 
repeater "Y" and someone now calls "UR EOC" and it routes to repeater "X", good 
so far. Now another station on a remote gateway, servicing repeater "Z", has 
"MY EOC" set and keys her microphone. The remote gateway dutifully updates the 
central data servers that "EOC" is now on repeater "Z" and sends an advisory 
notice to your local gateway of this information. Your local gateway says, oh, 
"EOC" has moved, I'll update my hashtable, now the station at repeater "X" keys 
with "UR EOC" and the gateway dutifully routes it to remote repeater "Z" ... 
ooops!

As I said before, the radio should ID its official callsign ... solving this 
problem. Certainly, my aforementioned alternatives would allow net or event 
participants to still use "tactical callsigns", an accepted practice in 
emergency communications. The use of "tactical callsigns" does not relieve a 
station of the responsibility of identifying his transmissions with his own 
callsign, so using the official station callsign in the MY field also frees the 
operator from having to remember to ID when in the heat of action during an 
event.


As a repeater trustee, one would have the responsibility to follow rule (in the 
US) 97.113a4, if she is aware of such transmissions.


I would say the filters should be available at the gateway so that a trustee 
can have some management of its use, but they should be optional.

-- John, K7VE


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Woodrick, Ed]

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)




Case in point: D-Plus linking is great, but it wasn't implemented in a
way to avoid the problems associated with mixing it with callsign
routing. I callsign route to a repeater that's involved in a D-Plus
link and (in my opinion) "bad" things happen.

A sure sign that an attempt to make an already-working system "easier",
actually makes it harder in the corner-cases, but "easier" in the
general sense.

Not trying to embarass anyone, but here's another example: I had an
e-mail today from one of our local leadership people saying, "Please
keep Port B clear for an event tomorrow." Okay, well.. let me explain
here... in a callsign-routed "always on" network, there's no "keeping it
clear" unless you want me to kill off D-Plus and the Gateway for ALL of
the modules... your Net Controller instead NEEDS to know how to reply to
a link made inbound from somewhere else and politely disconnect it, or
respond to an interloping Dongle user, or how to hit the one-touch and
reply to a callsign-routed "CQ" and explain there's a Net going on. The
network is ALWAYS on in D-STAR... unless you're directing me to shut
down the Gateway... was my reply...


That's my opinion anyway... "Power to the people" so to speak. LOL!

Nate WY0X
--
Nate Duehr
n...@natetech.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Barry A. Wilson]

John,

 

I like your idea of using the four digit call sign note for tactical
calls during operations.  It makes perfect use of the stations call sign
while providing a tactical or special event ID. That would work very well on
events when you want to ID Resources as well as who the operators are
leaving little or no confusion.  You also provide a legal & respectable call
route when going through the internet gateways and transmitting on remote
repeaters where the local repeater operator/trustee may not share such a
loose interpretation of the rules such as use of anything goes for the
digital call sign field (MYCALL).

 

Digression

 

I often feel like some operators would rather turn amateur radio into
Citizens Band (CB) where anything goes as long as you don't get caught.
Since we already allow Spanish speaking only repeaters on the air, why not
port channel 19 CB and Itinerate radios onto our local amateur airwaves too
so we can be one big happy deregulated family local and abroad. I like
listening to the lot lizards at the local truck stops occasionally. It's so
much fun to listen to them scurry about when law enforcement comes on scene.
Almost as much fun as shooting ground hogs with a .308 and a night vision
scope! Whatever happened to the good old days when kids could get dynamite
at the local COOP store to go blow out stumps. For a bigger bang add a bag
of sodium nitrate fertilizer. Fun times! We don't need to regulate common
sense any more today than we 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@yahoogroups.com
 , "Nate Duehr"  wrote:
>
> 
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:18:26 -0700, "John Hays"  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 field for SMS. 
> > Certainly, the local repeater could be allowed to pass tactical radio 
> > callsigns, but across the network you are just asking for routing 
> > errors if more than one station decides their callsign of the day is 
> > "TAC1" or "BASE" or "EOC" (mitigated by registration, but then only 
> > one station in the entire network can be "TAC1", in a dynamic 
> > addressed network it would be anarchy).
> 
> It hasn't been "anarchy" yet... I disagree. Yes, you have to watch out
> that you aren't using some tacticals that someone else is using on the
> same day. How often has that happened in the real world yet? :-)
> 

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 don't have a database of who's using what
callsign (though such a design would probably have query tools) I see this
design being very dynamic with routing lookups "on demand" with caching. So
the local "gateway" sees your local special callsign and marks it as being
on local repeater "X" and reports to the central data servers, that "EOC" is
now on repeater "X" (based on the "MY EOC" field). The gateway also services
another repeater "Y" and someone now calls "UR EOC" and it routes to
repeater "X", good so far. Now another station on a remote gateway,
servicing repeater "Z", has "MY EOC" set and keys her microphone. The remote
gateway dutifully updates the central data servers that "EOC" is now on
repeater "Z" and sends an advisory notice to your local gateway of this
information. Your local gateway says, oh, "EOC" has moved, I'll update my
hashtable, now the station at repeater "X" keys with "UR EOC" and the
gateway dutifully routes it to remote repeater "Z" ... ooops! 

As I said before, the radio should ID its official callsign ... solving this
problem. Certainly, my aforementioned alternatives would allow net or event
participants to still use "tactical callsigns", an accepted practice in
emergency communications. The use of "tactical callsigns" does not relieve a
station of the responsibility of identifying his transmissions with his own
callsign, so using the official station callsign in the MY field also frees
the operator from having to remember to ID when in the heat of action during
an event.

> > The filter would have to be pretty "loose" but keep it to looking 
> > something like a callsign and definitely could filter certain profane 
> > words.
> 
> Ohh.. now you've opened Pandora's box. Is it the Network's
> responsibility to stop someone from transmitting naughty words in their
> callsign field? :-)
> 

As a repeater trustee, one would have the responsibility to follow rule (in
t

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Nate Duehr]

On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:33:22 -0700, "John Hays"  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.  What if I wanted to run XNS (Xerox Networking Service)  
> or Novell's IPX over D-STAR, its Ethernet but not IP.  

Has anyone actually tried that?  I could brush up on my Novell skills
from 1992.  

Never saw a more stable fileserver in my entire IT/telco professional
career as a Novell 3.11 server.  :-)

Nate WY0X
--
  Nate Duehr
  n...@natetech.com

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Nate Duehr]

On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:31:17 -, "john_ke5c"  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 care if this is politically incorrect or insensitive, but if you
> want "tactical" this, that and the other, just join your local police
> force or the marines.  You can probably even get tactical underwear
> there.  If you want to operate on the amateur bands and modes, use an
> amateur callsign.  10-4?

LOL!  With this I actually totally agree with you John.  People with
lightbars on their vehicles without real Public Safety credentials make
me cringe.

The reason for Tactical callsigns in D-STAR SPECIFICALLY is if you have
a bunch of radios already programmed with CALLSIGN SQUELCH.  And it's
only a hypothetical anyway... Most of this callsign routing, callsign
squelch, etc... is WAY beyond the mental capabilities of a WHOLE lot of
people in the volunteer pool of operators.

I was just saying: I don't want the Gateway filtering things... the
operators need to step up and learn something to use this system.  It's
more complex than "mash to mumble" and the more the "infrastructure"
tries to make it simpler, the more complex it actually becomes. 

Case in point:  D-Plus linking is great, but it wasn't implemented in a
way to avoid the problems associated with mixing it with callsign
routing.  I callsign route to a repeater that's involved in a D-Plus
link and (in my opinion) "bad" things happen.  

A sure sign that an attempt to make an already-working system "easier",
actually makes it harder in the corner-cases, but "easier" in the
general sense.

Not trying to embarass anyone, but here's another example:  I had an
e-mail today from one of our local leadership people saying, "Please
keep Port B clear for an event tomorrow."  Okay, well.. let me explain
here... in a callsign-routed "always on" network, there's no "keeping it
clear" unless you want me to kill off D-Plus and the Gateway for ALL of
the modules... your Net Controller instead NEEDS to know how to reply to
a link made inbound from somewhere else and politely disconnect it, or
respond to an interloping Dongle user, or how to hit the one-touch and
reply to a callsign-routed "CQ" and explain there's a Net going on.  The
network is ALWAYS on in D-STAR... unless you're directing me to shut
down the Gateway... was my reply... 

If we start adding "filters", sure then a sysadmin could "authorize"
only the callsigns that are involved in the "event", but that puts an
unnecessary burden on the system admin or delegates that can more
adequately be handled by the conscious decision to teach the Net Control
and other stations HOW the system works... 

That's my opinion anyway... "Power to the people" so to speak.  LOL!

Nate WY0X
--
  Nate Duehr
  n...@natetech.com

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Nate Duehr]

On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:18:26 -0700, "John Hays"  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 field for SMS.   
> Certainly, the local repeater could be allowed to pass tactical radio  
> callsigns, but across the network you are just asking for routing  
> errors if more than one station decides their callsign of the day is  
> "TAC1" or "BASE" or "EOC" (mitigated by registration, but then only  
> one station in the entire network can be "TAC1", in a dynamic  
> addressed network it would be anarchy).

It hasn't been "anarchy" yet... I disagree.  Yes, you have to watch out
that you aren't using some tacticals that someone else is using on the
same day.  How often has that happened in the real world yet?  :-)

> The filter would have to be pretty "loose" but keep it to looking  
> something like a callsign and definitely could filter certain profane  
> words.

Ohh.. now you've opened Pandora's box.  Is it the Network's
responsibility to stop someone from transmitting naughty words in their
callsign field?  :-)

On both of the above ... I say "no filters".  Transmissions are the
responsibility of the transmitting station... as always.  Software in
charge of "human policy" always ends up a mess, and people figure out
ways around it anyway.

Nate WY0X
--
  Nate Duehr
  n...@natetech.com

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Evans F. Mitchell KD4EFM]

John, the 44 net is an external IP and not a router LAN accessible ip.
10/8 net was chosen because it is a Class A net. More hams then
pc's right???
 
For off the shelf operations, the 10/8 net was chosen as in INTERNAL thing
rather then an external.
 

Evans F. Mitchell
KD4EFM / AFA4TH FL / WQFK-894

 Fla. D-Star Tech Support Group
 http://www.florida-dstar.info <http://www.florida-dstar.info/> 

Polk ARES A.E.C.
http://www.polkemcomm.org <http://www.polkemcomm.org/> 


 

  _  

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John Hays
Sent: Thursday, 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 it, regulations 
> are
> written that each Amateur Station is responsible for their own
> transmissions.
>

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. What if I wanted to run XNS (Xerox Networking Service) 
or Novell's IPX over D-STAR, its Ethernet but not IP. The gateway 
system should concern itself with routing to Callsigns as a transport 
and let the Ethernet networking be setup according to the stations' 
preferences. (And why not use network 44 which belongs to the amateur 
community rather than 10 for IP anyway?) The D-STAR DD network should 
be a tunneling network.

John Hays
Amateur Radio: K7VE
j...@hays.org <mailto:john%40hays.org> 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[John Hays]

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 it, regulations  
> are
> written that each Amateur Station is responsible for their own
> transmissions.
>







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.  What if I wanted to run XNS (Xerox Networking Service)  
or Novell's IPX over D-STAR, its Ethernet but not IP.  The gateway  
system should concern itself with routing to Callsigns as a transport  
and let the Ethernet networking be setup according to the stations'  
preferences. (And why not use network 44 which belongs to the amateur  
community rather than 10 for IP anyway?)  The D-STAR DD network should  
be a tunneling network.

John Hays
Amateur Radio: K7VE
j...@hays.org



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[John Hays]

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 you, might be my special event's tactical callsigns.
> (There's nothing stopping anyone from registering "SAG1, SAG1, NET,
> EVENT", etc.)
>













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 field for SMS.   
Certainly, the local repeater could be allowed to pass tactical radio  
callsigns, but across the network you are just asking for routing  
errors if more than one station decides their callsign of the day is  
"TAC1" or "BASE" or "EOC" (mitigated by registration, but then only  
one station in the entire network can be "TAC1", in a dynamic  
addressed network it would be anarchy).

I know you know it, but the callsign is the routing address in D-STAR.

The filter would have to be pretty "loose" but keep it to looking  
something like a callsign and definitely could filter certain profane  
words.


John Hays
Amateur Radio: K7VE
j...@hays.org



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Nate Duehr]

On Thu, 14 May 2009 10:04:21 -0700, "John Hays"  said:
> 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 what needed relayed somewhere else and what  
> is just local repeater traffic.

Let the router be the router, eh?  That's a great idea, John.  Wish that
could happen.

> A) Radios (RF) on D-STAR did not need to register - let the gateways  
> just update current location into a dynamic, distributed data store.  

Agreed.  I always assumed "registration" was to meet regulatory
requirements somewhere, but the more I thought about it, regulations are
written that each Amateur Station is responsible for their own
transmissions.  If anything, the Gateway should have had a "blacklist"
for protection of the operator of the repeater from malicious
interference or other issues -- but as we thought about that... ANYONE
can become "WY0X" or whatever callsign they want at the spin of a dial,
so filtering by callsign is completely "busted" as a concept right from
the start.

> (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 you, might be my special event's tactical callsigns. 
(There's nothing stopping anyone from registering "SAG1, SAG1, NET,
EVENT", etc.)

> B) Only register "network devices" such as gateways, reflectors,  
> dongles, etc. and have things like dv dongles, autopatches, cross  
> service links (e.g. IRLP), run through servers that present them to  
> the D-STAR network.  Redundant "trust servers" could maintain this  
> registry to remove the single point of failure.

Hmmm.  Thinking about that one.

> This would facilitate such things as mobile D-STAR stations moving  
> from repeater-to-repeater or port to port in real time.
> Enable addressing services (reflectors, dv dongle type devices, nets,  
> etc.) directly in "UR" field.

Real time roaming certainly seems like it should have been "do-able"
right from the start... 

> RPT2 could be used to route to a different repeater/port and eliminate  
> the whole "/repeater" syntax.

Another interesting thought.  

Thanks John.

Nate WY0X
--
  Nate Duehr
  n...@natetech.com

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Nate Duehr]

On Thu, 14 May 2009 08:30:12 -0400, "Evans F. Mitchell KD4EFM"
 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 by way of D-PRS. Now with that in mind,
> in plain sight, one would not really care if the communication was
> simplex.

Ahh yes, in my original reply to Kay I also forgot about D-PRS to APRS
gateways.  The Gateway callsign in RPT2 is required for that also.

So the reasons for RPT2 to have the Gateway callsign in the U.S. more
often are the following: 

1. DV-Dongle users listening to repeater traffic.
2. D-Plus links.
3. D-PRS/APRS Gateways

Thanks Evans.

Nate WY0X
--
  Nate Duehr
  n...@natetech.com

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Nate Duehr]

On Thu, 14 May 2009 15:33:29 +0900, "JI1BQW" 
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 in
> RPT2 when calling CQ.  We are advised to set nothing here.  Another
> reason might be that we have no chance to link to a dplus reflector from
> our radios.  Noone even thinks of setting something in RPT2 with CQCQCQ
> (except for a cross-band call on the same repeater).
> 
> 73,
> -- 
> JI1BQW - Kay Ishikawa
> 
> - Original Message Ends 

Hi Kay, 

It is needed here for DV Dongle users to be able to "hear" local
repeater traffic, and also as a default setting for users to pass
through D-Plus links.

Nate WY0X
--
  Nate Duehr
  n...@natetech.com

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Evans F. Mitchell KD4EFM]

John, I could not agree any more then that...
With the adventure of two different projects out there
right now (Robin's ODP, and Scott's D_Extra) the only
thing keeping things in the MUD is the controller...
Other then that, we just keep moving forward to
a ONE DAY UNIFIED SYSTEM, where P25, D-Star,
and what ever else digital ( I have to add POCSAG or 
any of the DIGITAL programs like PSK-31, RTTY (yeah RTTY for SMS)
will be a common tool for not just HF but D-Star too..
 
Heck, AOR9600 is near D-Star HF as it gets right now, one day
it will be D-Star HF ICOM rigs hitting the market... 
 
oppps, there goes 300bps HF packet, now 900 bps D-Star Keyboard QSO's.
 
So I say I agree on your comments 100%, it's just not quite time for it.
I am thinking about working on a P25 project that will convert to and from
D-Star I just have to wait for a couple of other people to collaborate
with
over the summer to see if it can be pulled off. So many people want to
pull the P25 card on d-star, I figure why not? What is to hold me back from
doing something like that?
 
( I have an idea on paper, just need to work on a hardware thing first. Look
at eQSO, John)
 

Evans F. Mitchell
KD4EFM / AFA4TH FL / WQFK-894

 Fla. D-Star Tech Support Group
 http://www.florida-dstar.info <http://www.florida-dstar.info/> 

Polk ARES A.E.C.
http://www.polkemcomm.org <http://www.polkemcomm.org/> 


 

  _  

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John Hays
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 what needed relayed somewhere else and what 
is just local repeater traffic.

I have been thinking about the whole D-STAR routing paradigm and the 
world would be much better if:

A) Radios (RF) on D-STAR did not need to register - let the gateways 
just update current location into a dynamic, distributed data store. 
(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)
B) Only register "network devices" such as gateways, reflectors, 
dongles, etc. and have things like dv dongles, autopatches, cross 
service links (e.g. IRLP), run through servers that present them to 
the D-STAR network. Redundant "trust servers" could maintain this 
registry to remove the single point of failure.

This would facilitate such things as mobile D-STAR stations moving 
from repeater-to-repeater or port to port in real time.
Enable addressing services (reflectors, dv dongle type devices, nets, 
etc.) directly in "UR" field.

RPT2 could be used to route to a different repeater/port and eliminate 
the whole "/repeater" syntax.

-- John 

On May 14, 2009, at 6:27 AM, Evans F. Mitchell KD4EFM wrote:
>
> From: Evans F. Mitchell KD4EFM [mailto:kd4e...@verizon.
<mailto:kd4efm1%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,
>
> 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 the RP2C, and right back out, with out any 
> information going
> to
> a connected gateway. R2 set to the local gw callsign and G, the RP2C 
> will
> send
> that data stream to the gw software, thus traffic can be heard from 
> the
> repeater.
>
>
> D-PRS (APRS); with R2 ON, this will send your position data to the 
> gw, and
> the
> DPRS program will then send it out to the aprs-is server stream and 
> show
> your
> position on an aprs viewing program, jfindU, or other like program
> (including dstarusers.org)
>
> With D-PRS, yes, you will get the RPT? every transmission, that is 
> because
> the RP2C
> has not been updated to understand the even though URCALL is CQCQCQ, 
> the
> data
> stream is still meant for the gateway. Once there is a RP2C firmware 
> update,
> things
> can be adjusted correctly then...
>
>

John Hays
Amateur Radio: K7VE
j...@hays.org <mailto:john%40hays.org> 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[John Hays]

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 what needed relayed somewhere else and what  
is just local repeater traffic.

I have been thinking about the whole D-STAR routing paradigm and the  
world would be much better if:

A) Radios (RF) on D-STAR did not need to register - let the gateways  
just update current location into a dynamic, distributed data store.  
(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)
B) Only register "network devices" such as gateways, reflectors,  
dongles, etc. and have things like dv dongles, autopatches, cross  
service links (e.g. IRLP), run through servers that present them to  
the D-STAR network.  Redundant "trust servers" could maintain this  
registry to remove the single point of failure.

This would facilitate such things as mobile D-STAR stations moving  
from repeater-to-repeater or port to port in real time.
Enable addressing services (reflectors, dv dongle type devices, nets,  
etc.) directly in "UR" field.

RPT2 could be used to route to a different repeater/port and eliminate  
the whole "/repeater" syntax.

-- John 


On May 14, 2009, at 6:27 AM, Evans F. Mitchell KD4EFM wrote:
>
> 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 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 you omit R2 your data  
> stream goes
> from
> the receiver to the RP2C, and right back out, with out any  
> information going
> to
> a connected gateway. R2 set to the local gw callsign and G, the RP2C  
> will
> send
> that data stream to the gw software, thus traffic can be heard from  
> the
> repeater.
>
>
> D-PRS (APRS); with R2 ON, this will send your position data to the  
> gw, and
> the
> DPRS program will then send it out to the aprs-is server stream and  
> show
> your
> position on an aprs viewing program, jfindU, or other like program
> (including dstarusers.org)
>
> With D-PRS, yes, you will get the RPT? every transmission, that is  
> because
> the RP2C
> has not been updated to understand the even though URCALL is CQCQCQ,  
> the
> data
> stream is still meant for the gateway. Once there is a RP2C firmware  
> update,
> things
> can be adjusted correctly then...
>
>














































John Hays
Amateur Radio: K7VE
j...@hays.org



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[JI1BQW]

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 the RP2C, and right back out, with out any information going 
> to
> a connected gateway. R2 set to the local gw callsign and G, the RP2C will send
> that data stream to the gw software, thus traffic can be heard from the 
> repeater.

This makes perfect sense to me.  I clearly see your need of RPT2 being
set to a gateway.

> D-PRS (APRS); with R2 ON, this will send your position data to the gw, and the
> DPRS program will then send it out to the aprs-is server stream and show your
> position on an aprs viewing program, jfindU, or other like program (including 
> dstarusers.org)

APRS/D-PRS is something I am ignorant of, but have just googled it and found
that this seems to be another area we are behind.  There are DPRS
I-Gates here in Japan too, but looks like they use a MS Windows software
(DPRSInterface ?) with a dedicated receiver setup separately from the
gateway.  If it was a G2 gateway with an add-on (javAPRSSrvr ?), they wouldn't
need a separate resource.

> With D-PRS, yes, you will get the RPT? every transmission, that is because 
> the RP2C
> has not been updated to understand the even though URCALL is CQCQCQ, the data
> stream is still meant for the gateway. Once there is a RP2C firmware update, 
> things
> can be adjusted correctly then...

OK.  But the reason why I got RPT? here seems to be more fundamental: the old 
gateway.

Thanks again.  I am learning a lot.

73,
-- 
JI1BQW - Kay Ishikawa

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Evans F. Mitchell KD4EFM]

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 you omit R2 your data stream goes
from
the receiver to the RP2C, and right back out, with out any information going
to
a connected gateway. R2 set to the local gw callsign and G, the RP2C will
send
that data stream to the gw software, thus traffic can be heard from the
repeater.
 
 
D-PRS (APRS); with R2 ON, this will send your position data to the gw, and
the
DPRS program will then send it out to the aprs-is server stream and show
your
position on an aprs viewing program, jfindU, or other like program
(including dstarusers.org)
 
With D-PRS, yes, you will get the RPT? every transmission, that is because
the RP2C
has not been updated to understand the even though URCALL is CQCQCQ, the
data
stream is still meant for the gateway. Once there is a RP2C firmware update,
things
can be adjusted correctly then...
 
I have practically lost sight of the repeater responses unless I am doing
CALL SIGN ROUTING
or PORT TO PORT gateway routing... other then that, anything my 2820 shows
is null
to me.
 
 
 
 

Evans F. Mitchell
KD4EFM / AFA4TH FL / WQFK-894

 

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Evans F. Mitchell KD4EFM]

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 communication was simplex.
 
To me, it would be a null thing to worry about, the radio will correct it's
self
if there is an error with the repeater call sign, where as simplex, it does
not
matter.
 
So yes, you will see two different versions of how to use RPT2 (R2).
To me, either way is correct.
 
73
 

Evans F. Mitchell

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[JI1BQW]

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
   RPT2=JP1YJX G
returns RPT?.  Getting rid of RPT2 results in UR?.  So we should NOT
specify G at RPT2 with UR=CQCQCQ here. 

So, if the DR mode is added to make D-Star operation easier, taking away
G from RPT2 might be meaningful in Japan (where there is no dplus) to
avoid such an errouneous situation.

73,
-- 
JI1BQW - Kay Ishikawa

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[JI1BQW]

>(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 in
RPT2 when calling CQ.  We are advised to set nothing here.  Another
reason might be that we have no chance to link to a dplus reflector from
our radios.  Noone even thinks of setting something in RPT2 with CQCQCQ
(except for a cross-band call on the same repeater).

73,
-- 
JI1BQW - Kay Ishikawa

- Original Message Ends