From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Feb 4 22:34:11 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA15876 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 22:34:11 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: X-Sender: dbade@en.com Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 23:30:38 -0500 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Doug Bade Subject: [ss] 900 Mhz Auction Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990204233038.0092bb30@en.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hello SIG. Have I missed discussions, or is this news?? Feb 23rd opens auctions for the 902 -928 MHZ spectrum for Vehicle location sevices (LMS). The FCC is auctioning 904.000 - 909.750, and 919.750 - 921.500, and 921.750-927.500. We are clearly co secondary with part 15 devices. The repeater council in my area was un-aware of what the commission is about to auction. It clearly affects me as I have repeaters in this band. Even these new users (LMS) are secondary to the govt radiolocation services and ISM. Fed govt fixed and mobile services appear to have secondary status too. We are identified as "SECONDARY TO ALL OTHER USERS OF THE BAND" , along with part 15 devices. Will this have negative effect on the TAPR SS project?, or is this a good test of shared usage under busy operating conditions? I hope this doesn't seem like doom and gloom, as I have been waiting with alot of you for the 900 SS radio project to become available. 73.. Doug KB8GVQ ... doug@clecom.com Doug Bade doug@clecom.com --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Feb 4 23:08:12 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA17321 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 23:08:11 -0600 (CST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Sender: dewayne@mail.warpspeed.com Message-Id: Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:05:32 -0800 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Dewayne Hendricks Subject: [ss] Re: 900 Mhz Auction List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk At 23:30 -0500 2/4/99, Doug Bade wrote: > Hello SIG. > Have I missed discussions, or is this news?? Feb 23rd opens > auctions for > the 902 -928 MHZ spectrum for Vehicle location sevices (LMS). > The FCC is auctioning 904.000 - 909.750, and 919.750 - 921.500, and > 921.750-927.500. We are clearly co secondary with part 15 devices. The > repeater council in my area was un-aware of what the commission is about to > auction. It clearly affects me as I have repeaters in this band. > Even these new users (LMS) are secondary to the govt radiolocation > services and ISM. Fed govt fixed and mobile services appear to have > secondary status too. We are identified as "SECONDARY TO ALL OTHER USERS OF > THE BAND" , along with part 15 devices. Will this have negative effect on > the TAPR SS project?, or is this a good test of shared usage under busy > operating conditions? > I hope this doesn't seem like doom and gloom, as I have been > waiting with > alot of you for the 900 SS radio project to become available. The upcoming auction really changes nothing as far as the current pecking order in the 902-928 MHz band. The ARS maintains that same rights that it had. We are NOT secondary to Part 15 devices!! However, I can see how you might be confused because at the time the Commission released the R&O that changed Part 90 for this service, they added wording that lumped the ARS and Part 15 devices into a class in particular circumstances. This has to deal with what has been now called a 'presumption of non-interference' and sets forth guidelines under which an LMS operator can seek relief to interference to their operations by other users of the spectrum. If ARS and Part 15 operations have antennas at certain heights AGL and use certain power levels, then there is a presumption of non-interference to LMS operations. To give you the bottom line on all this, what this means is that there will soon be someone in certain metro areas across the country who is going to want to operate in spectrum that they paid for. Any ARS operation in their parts of the band that causes interference to their operation and does not meet the 'presumption' test may be in for trouble. Right now there are 528 licenses up for grabs and the FCC has only authorized three bidders (six applications were submitted). Until the auctions are over, we won't really know where things will stand. TAPR closely follows all FCC matters that effects our membership and we will let you know just what the impact of this auction will be on ARS operations in the band as soon as the dust settles. -- Dewayne Hendricks WA8DZP Chairperson TAPR Regulatory Affairs Committee --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Feb 5 02:39:43 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA00815 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 02:39:42 -0600 (CST) From: Darryl Smith To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 19:27:12 +1100 Message-ID: Organization: Quite poor X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: February 04, 1999 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <36BAAB5F.CA6C9697@ozemail.com.au> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk But you still do not have 900-930 MHz for GSM phones, even after the Auction. This makes the USA about the only place in the world that I cannot use my phone. Sure there are other parts of the world I can't use it, but none so big. My father even made a call from his GSM phone from a Game park in South Africa to me in Australia. I have called him on his Australian number and spoken to him in Thailand. If only the USA could get some 900 MHz GSM I could use it everywhere. And because the encryption is fairly good, I dont even need to request service in most parts of the world. I just turn the phone on. Darryl VK2TDS P.S. Anyone wanting to use 900 MHz devices during the Sydney Olympics had better watch out. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Feb 5 06:19:41 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA15841 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 06:19:40 -0600 (CST) From: Steve Sampson Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: February 04, 1999 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 06:18:11 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "Darryl Smith" at Feb 5, 99 07:27:12 pm Content-Type: text List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <199902051218.GAA04820@access.usa-site.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > My father even made a call from his GSM phone from a Game park in South > Africa to me in Australia. I have called him on his Australian number > and spoken to him in Thailand. If only the USA could get some 900 MHz > GSM I could use it everywhere. And because the encryption is fairly > good, I dont even need to request service in most parts of the world. I > just turn the phone on. We currently have a Fascist Congress, and a Socialist Executive. Therefore anything with the word "encryption" is grounds for incarceration in a concentration camp. Beyond that, 900 MHz is a dumping ground, and not a place for commercial development. US wireless phones are heavily allocated about 30 MHz lower. You need to look into newer and better technology. The satellite systems will be affordable to anyone who is a world traveler. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Feb 5 06:23:42 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA15927 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 06:23:42 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 17:58:28 +1100 From: dwayne Organization: Nexus-Limbo X-Accept-Language: en,ja,zh,zh-TW,zh-CN,hr,en-GB,fi,de,el,is,no,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Proposed Wireless Internet of Portable hosts References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <36BA9693.5ADBDDC0@pobox.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Jake Janovetz wrote: > Dwayne, if you're interested, unfortunately, I'm interested in everything :-) > I have done a bit of work with the > 68360 and RTEMS (a real-time OS, publicly available). Aha. What did you come up with? > Some time > ago, I told the TAPR-SS group about this but they weren't interested. Why not? > They're using XINU. The point is, I have ftpd, telnetd, and httpd > already written for RTEMS. In addition, a port of Kaffe is > underway to RTEMS (Kaffe is an Open Source JAVA for those of you > who don't know). Hmmm. Okay. I run kaffe on my linux box. Although, really, what we are after right now is transmission technologies, and then we'll worry about operating systems and stuff afterwards. > So, Dwayne, if you and your boys from down-under get working on > your own project, I'd be more than happy to send schematics and > code your way. I also have a good deal of experience with the > Motorola DSP if you choose to do your radio that way. It's MUCH > more flexible, but won't be as cheap as the TAPR modem. Well, yes, we are interested, but totally clueless about this stuff. So, um, sending me your stuff would be really nifty, and we might want to ask you some questions about the stuff we find incomprehensible. There's a heap of people in Canberra at the moment right now who are setting up a network using obsolete WAVELan cards, they have 34 at the moment, and we are thinking of buying about 20 - 40 ourselves as an interim setup until we can build our own system. But the canberra people have some radio people involved, so maybe I could see if they want to help out. so, yes please, basically :-) > I've built a highly flexible baseband transmitter/receiver for > the digital communications course here at the University of > Illinois. For more information, check out my home page. Gah, offline right now, will look later. > PP-ASEL | http://www.ews.uiuc.edu/~janovetz/index.html Dwayne -- mailto:ddraig@pobox.com http://i.am/dwayne ....return....to....the....source.... --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Feb 5 06:30:56 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA16074 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 06:30:55 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 23:29:39 +1100 From: dwayne Organization: Nexus-Limbo X-Accept-Language: en,ja,zh,zh-TW,zh-CN,hr,en-GB,fi,de,el,is,no,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: February 04, 1999 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <36BAE433.5F581662@pobox.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Steve Sampson wrote: > > My father even made a call from his GSM phone from a Game park in South > > Africa to me in Australia. I have called him on his Australian number > > and spoken to him in Thailand. If only the USA could get some 900 MHz > > GSM I could use it everywhere. And because the encryption is fairly > > good, I dont even need to request service in most parts of the world. I > > just turn the phone on. > > We currently have a Fascist Congress, and a Socialist Executive. Without getting into a stupid political shitfight, I find any use of the word "socialist" to describe any part of the US govt hysterically funny. However, I realise that this is rhetoric and you didn't really mean it, so I'll be quiet now. > Therefore > anything with the word "encryption" is grounds for incarceration in a > concentration camp. Um, hang on. You guys can't *export* encryption, but you can use it, can't you? Dwayne -- mailto:ddraig@pobox.com http://i.am/dwayne ....return....to....the....source.... --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Feb 5 06:45:31 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA16458 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 06:45:31 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 12:40:23 +0000 From: Charles Brain X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: February 04, 1999 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <36BAE6B7.81529819@arrl.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk dwayne wrote: > > Steve Sampson wrote: > > > > My father even made a call from his GSM phone from a Game park in South etc etc etc The next U.S - Europe argument is over the next generation UMTS phones! This should be fun! By the way as an alien who has dealt with the U.S government, the biggest problem seems to be its shear size. It seems as if every other U.S citizen is a government employee of some sort or another! Still I guess it beats Welfare. - Charles --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Feb 5 06:59:21 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA16824 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 06:59:21 -0600 (CST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 06:56:08 -0600 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Greg Jones, WD5IVD" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: February 04, 1999 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Guys, this isn't USENET. Stick to the technical topic at hand or shift over to USENET to fling stuff. Cheers - Greg ----- Greg Jones, WD5IVD Austin, Texas wd5ivd@tapr.org http://www.tapr.org/~wd5ivd --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Feb 5 13:15:08 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA28708 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:15:08 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 11:12:26 -0800 From: Jon Roland Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: February 04, 1999 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk ------------------------ From: Steve Sampson > The > satellite systems will be affordable to anyone who is a world traveler. They are also a chokepoint, subject to monitoring, failure, and interdiction. We need autonomous systems controlled by their users. ---------------End of Original Message----------------- =================================================================== Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 02/05/99 Time: 11:12:26 http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org =================================================================== --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Feb 6 20:32:39 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA15530 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 20:32:39 -0600 (CST) From: Steve Sampson Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Linux Symphony To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 20:31:23 -0600 (CST) Cc: ssampson@access.usa-site.net (Steve Sampson) Content-Type: text List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <199902070231.UAA16791@access.usa-site.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk This is a report on the Linux Symphony drivers I have been installing. The result is an inexpensive wireless network. Proxim has delayed their bridge device for over 2.5 months now, and it will be in the $400 price class when it finally does ship. The linux driver removes any need for the bridge device. I am able to report that the driver does work, and it works very well through-out the house. The ping times average about 15 ms. I have three systems currently. One is a Win98 node, the other two are Linux RedHat 5.2 machines. I spent last weekend figuring out how to make the linux and Win98 work together. The docs are complete, but the plug-n-play and modules procedures were new to me. I just haven't messed with those features. The Proxim cards are plug and play, so you need to set that up on the linux. The best way to do that is: pnpdump >/etc/isapnp.conf and then go edit the conf file. I really had a hard time with IRQ selection. I finally got IRQ 3 and IO address 0x200 to work, and that's where I intend to say! When you reboot this file will be read, and your Symphony will be ready for commands. After you compile the module (instructions included), you can load it using: insmod rlmod irq=3 io=0x200 CardType=4 This will load the module and you can now command the card using /usr/local/bin/rl2cfg like so: rl2cfg dev eth0 msta channel 3 sub 5 name BIGBOY rl2cfg dev eth0 secid secret This second command is Proxims way of providing privacy so others can't easily view your activity. Now you're ready for the TCP/IP routing: ifconfig eth0 10.0.0.1 netmask 255.0.0.0 broadcast 10.255.255.255 ifconfig eth0 up route add default eth0 Something like that, your system may vary. In my system, I have an ethernet card and a Symphony, so I use the same IP address on both cards, and enable IP forwarding in the /etc/sysconfig/network file: FORWARD_IPV4=true This will be set on next reboot. I have not got this setup to work with the Win98 computer. It refuses to see the Linux boxes. At this time I am downloading the latest drivers, and will try and re-install. So that's the verdict, it works great on Linux, but so far not with Win98 and linux. I did look at my spectrum analyzer to see what the signal looks like. I was surprised at how wide it is! The device is a slow hopper. It hops around rather randomly, and I was able to see all devices with just a little whip antenna (the analyzer is not that good a receiver with just an antenna). I intend to try and use this at 1/4 mile on an outside antenna. From what I see on the analyzer I think it will work pretty well. Steve, N5OWK --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Feb 6 20:35:38 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA15673 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 20:35:38 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 19:34:11 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Brett Glass Subject: [ss] Re: Linux Symphony Cc: ssampson@access.usa-site.net (Steve Sampson) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.1.19990206193309.00c8a100@mail.lariat.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk You can do a similar thing with Lucent WaveLAN cards on FreeBSD. The driver makes them act like LAN cards; the OS can do bridging and routing. --Brett Glass At 08:31 PM 2/6/99 -0600, Steve Sampson wrote: >This is a report on the Linux Symphony drivers I have been >installing. The result is an inexpensive wireless network. "Rules? This is the Internet." -- Dan Gillmor --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Feb 6 20:45:40 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA15925 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 20:45:39 -0600 (CST) From: Steve Sampson Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: Linux Symphony To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 20:44:04 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "Brett Glass" at Feb 6, 99 07:34:11 pm Content-Type: text List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <199902070244.UAA16865@access.usa-site.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk How much is the WaveLAN? The Proxim's are $150 retail, probably much less in boxes of 100. Steve, N5OWK > You can do a similar thing with Lucent WaveLAN cards on > FreeBSD. The driver makes them act like LAN cards; the > OS can do bridging and routing. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Feb 6 20:54:35 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA16087 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 20:54:35 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 18:49:42 -0800 From: Jon Roland Subject: [ss] Re: Linux Symphony To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Can we get a comparative analysis and evaluation of these and other alternatives. We hear from those who have tried one thing and made it work, but they don't talk about other things that they couldn't get to work, or to work very well. We need some reports of side-by-side comparisons, for cost, performance, reliability, and any other relevant attributes. --Jon =================================================================== Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 02/06/99 Time: 18:49:42 http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org =================================================================== --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Feb 6 21:19:42 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA16944 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 21:19:41 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 20:18:26 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Brett Glass Subject: [ss] Re: Linux Symphony In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.1.19990206201442.045a46f0@mail.lariat.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk There are several WaveLAN models with different bus connections and frequencies; the price varies depending upon what you buy. Price is probably more than for the Proxim, but they're better stuff. The Lucent cards have the advantage of working over a wider area than the Proxims. There's a Japanese site which contains free, downloadable software for FreeBSD that lets you set up a campus-wide network, with portables "roaming" freely between the coverage areas of base stations. Neat stuff. --Brett At 08:44 PM 2/6/99 -0600, Steve Sampson wrote: >How much is the WaveLAN? > >The Proxim's are $150 retail, probably much less in boxes of 100. > >Steve, N5OWK > >> You can do a similar thing with Lucent WaveLAN cards on >> FreeBSD. The driver makes them act like LAN cards; the >> OS can do bridging and routing. > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: BRETT@LARIAT.ORG >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > "Rules? This is the Internet." -- Dan Gillmor --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Feb 6 21:22:00 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA17027 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 21:22:00 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Jim K." To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Linux Symphony Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 22:22:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <001001be5249$282a3ea0$1400a8c0@fchip.jk> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Where can I buy a set of WaveLan cards? Jim -----Original Message----- From: Brett Glass To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Date: Saturday, February 06, 1999 10:18 PM Subject: [ss] Re: Linux Symphony >There are several WaveLAN models with different bus connections >and frequencies; the price varies depending upon what you buy. >Price is probably more than for the Proxim, but they're better >stuff. > >The Lucent cards have the advantage of working over a wider >area than the Proxims. There's a Japanese site which contains >free, downloadable software for FreeBSD that lets you set up >a campus-wide network, with portables "roaming" freely >between the coverage areas of base stations. Neat >stuff. > >--Brett > >At 08:44 PM 2/6/99 -0600, Steve Sampson wrote: > >>How much is the WaveLAN? >> >>The Proxim's are $150 retail, probably much less in boxes of 100. >> >>Steve, N5OWK >> >>> You can do a similar thing with Lucent WaveLAN cards on >>> FreeBSD. The driver makes them act like LAN cards; the >>> OS can do bridging and routing. >> >>--- >>You are currently subscribed to ss as: BRETT@LARIAT.ORG >>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org >> > > >"Rules? This is the Internet." -- Dan Gillmor > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: JIMBOK@I-2000.COM >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Feb 6 22:30:46 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA19004 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 22:30:46 -0600 (CST) From: Steve Sampson Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Side by Side Comparisons To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 22:29:35 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "Jon Roland" at Feb 6, 99 06:49:42 pm Content-Type: text List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <199902070429.WAA17499@access.usa-site.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Here's all I can give you: Proxim Symphony ISA Card Cost Performance Reliability Freq Power Max # Nodes $150 1.6 Mbps > 30 days so far 2.4 GHz 100 mW 10 per Master Ping time with 1500 characters averages 55 ms > We need some reports of side-by-side comparisons, for cost, > performance, reliability, and any other relevant attributes. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Feb 6 23:53:31 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA22725 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:53:31 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 22:52:08 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Brett Glass Subject: [ss] Re: Linux Symphony In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.1.19990206225047.00c8ca10@mail.lariat.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk They have a bunch of regional distributors. The one in my area happens to be Allied. Normally, they're built into products; they won't have Part 15 certification without a tested system around them. Of course, if you have your ticket, that's not a problem. --Brett At 10:22 PM 2/6/99 -0500, Jim K. wrote: >Where can I buy a set of WaveLan cards? > >Jim > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Brett Glass >To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group >Date: Saturday, February 06, 1999 10:18 PM >Subject: [ss] Re: Linux Symphony > > >>There are several WaveLAN models with different bus connections >>and frequencies; the price varies depending upon what you buy. >>Price is probably more than for the Proxim, but they're better >>stuff. >> >>The Lucent cards have the advantage of working over a wider >>area than the Proxims. There's a Japanese site which contains >>free, downloadable software for FreeBSD that lets you set up >>a campus-wide network, with portables "roaming" freely >>between the coverage areas of base stations. Neat >>stuff. >> >>--Brett >> >>At 08:44 PM 2/6/99 -0600, Steve Sampson wrote: >> >>>How much is the WaveLAN? >>> >>>The Proxim's are $150 retail, probably much less in boxes of 100. >>> >>>Steve, N5OWK >>> >>>> You can do a similar thing with Lucent WaveLAN cards on >>>> FreeBSD. The driver makes them act like LAN cards; the >>>> OS can do bridging and routing. >>> >>>--- >>>You are currently subscribed to ss as: BRETT@LARIAT.ORG >>>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org >>> >> >> >>"Rules? This is the Internet." -- Dan Gillmor >> >>--- >>You are currently subscribed to ss as: JIMBOK@I-2000.COM >>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org >> > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: BRETT@LARIAT.ORG >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > "Rules? This is the Internet." -- Dan Gillmor --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Feb 6 23:59:17 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA22876 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:59:17 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 22:57:48 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Brett Glass Subject: [ss] Re: Side by Side Comparisons In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.1.19990206225249.04496ca0@mail.lariat.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I can give you SOME of the same information on the Lucent cards. Price: Varies with model and quantity Performance: 2 Mbps Modulation scheme: DSSS Reliability: We have a wireless LAN that's been running for 4 YEARS with no downtime Frequency: 900 MHz or 2.4 GHz Power: 250 mW on 900 MHz (more with amplifier; up to 1W ERP for Part 15 operation) 100 mW on 2.4 GHz (more with amplifier; Part 15 describes allowable power antenna gain combinations) Max nodes: 255 Ping times: 5 ms typical --Brett At 10:29 PM 2/6/99 -0600, Steve Sampson wrote: >Here's all I can give you: > >Proxim Symphony ISA Card >Cost Performance Reliability Freq Power Max # Nodes >$150 1.6 Mbps > 30 days so far 2.4 GHz 100 mW 10 per Master > >Ping time with 1500 characters averages 55 ms > >> We need some reports of side-by-side comparisons, for cost, >> performance, reliability, and any other relevant attributes. > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: BRETT@LARIAT.ORG >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > "Rules? This is the Internet." -- Dan Gillmor --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Feb 7 09:50:57 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA20212 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 09:50:57 -0600 (CST) From: bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Message-Id: Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 10:49:42 -0500 (EST) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Side by Side Comparisons In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <199902071549.KAA04250@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Brett Glass wrote: > I can give you SOME of the same information on the Lucent cards. > > Price: Varies with model and quantity > Performance: 2 Mbps > Modulation scheme: DSSS > Reliability: We have a wireless LAN that's been running for 4 YEARS > with no downtime > Frequency: 900 MHz or 2.4 GHz > Power: 250 mW on 900 MHz (more with amplifier; up to 1W ERP for Part 15 operation) > 100 mW on 2.4 GHz (more with amplifier; Part 15 describes allowable One small correction: power output of the 2.4 GHz units is only 15 dBm (about 30 mW). Even without amps, though, you can still get upwards of 10 miles line-of-sight with cheap 23 dBi grid parabolic antennas if you can keep the feedline losses reasonable. Barry -- Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP | bm@hydra.carleton.ca Ottawa Amateur Radio Club | bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Packet Working Group | http://hydra.carleton.ca --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Feb 8 06:01:43 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA11054 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 06:01:43 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 13:00:15 +0100 From: Thomas Sailer Organization: IfE X-Accept-Language: de,fr,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Side by Side Comparisons References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <36BED1CF.82819C21@ife.ee.ethz.ch> Precedence: bulk Brett Glass wrote: > > I can give you SOME of the same information on the Lucent cards. > Ping times: 5 ms typical Ok, but this is ping time with small packets? 1500 bytes ~= 10kbits 10kbits / 2 MBit/s ~= 5ms Then take this 2 times (round trip) plus non negligible channel access overhead, must be significantly more than 10ms. Tom --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Feb 8 06:05:14 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA11268 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 06:05:13 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 05:03:44 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Brett Glass Subject: [ss] Re: Side by Side Comparisons In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.1.19990208050250.00cd86d0@mail.lariat.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk At 01:00 PM 2/8/99 +0100, Thomas Sailer wrote: >Ok, but this is ping time with small packets? UNIX's ping utility uses small packets by default. What we're seeing here is the latency. I actually rounded the number; the computer measured 5.4 ms. --Brett "Rules? This is the Internet." -- Dan Gillmor --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Feb 8 06:18:24 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA11584 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 06:18:24 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 12:17:31 +0000 From: Terry Giles Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Organization: Ramar Technology To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Vehicle Location Service MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-disposition: inline Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Precedence: bulk Hello SIG Does anybody know anything about the spec. for these LMS- Vehicle Location Systems that will be in the 902-928MHz band? I am particularly interested in output power, probable duty cycle and I assume that they will be DSSS to do the range calculations Can anybody help. 73's de G4CDY Terry Giles RAMAR Technology Ltd Airport House, Purley Way Surrey CR0 0XZ UK +44 (0) 181 781 1959 +44 (0) 181 781 1958 FAX e-mail terry@ramar.co.uk --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Feb 8 08:36:11 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA14868 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 08:36:10 -0600 (CST) From: "Plamen Ganev" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] help Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 15:12:34 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <000901be53b8$82f90bc0$1300a8c0@iceman.c-map.lan> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk help --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Feb 9 11:24:52 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA26114 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 11:24:52 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 09:16:07 -0800 From: Andrew Burgess Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Side by Side Comparisons Newsgroups: mail.tapr.ss References: <99020804041311348@cichlid.com> Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <199902091716.JAA14808@loach.cichlid.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk >At 01:00 PM 2/8/99 +0100, Thomas Sailer wrote: > >>Ok, but this is ping time with small packets? >UNIX's ping utility uses small packets by default. What we're seeing >here is the latency. I actually rounded the number; the computer >measured 5.4 ms. Linux and Solaris use 56 data bytes by default, which is 64 bytes total packet size. You can set it as low a 8 bytes and still get timing info. My ISP ping times are 40msec with the default 56 data bytes and 30msec with 8 bytes (128Kbps ISDN). What are the boards ping times for 8 byte packets, just for general interest? I'd guess it would shave a msec off the default times. Giant packets might be of interest too... Thanks Andy -- Andrew Burgess aab@cichlid.com Available for software contract work: www.scruz.net/~cichlid --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Feb 9 11:48:34 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA27080 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 11:48:33 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 10:32:23 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Brett Glass Subject: [ss] Re: Side by Side Comparisons In-Reply-To: References: <99020804041311348@cichlid.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.1.19990209102746.046baad0@mail.lariat.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk At 09:16 AM 2/9/99 -0800, Andrew Burgess wrote: >What are the boards ping times for 8 byte packets, just for >general interest? I'd guess it would shave a msec off the default >times. These are 64-byte packets, using FreeBSD (original Berkeley UNIX). They're going through the Ethernet, into a wireless bridge, out over the air, and then back. So there's a minor amount of delay due to bridging. Ping times are 4-5 ms. The packets are so short that all we're seeing is latency. --Brett "Rules? This is the Internet." -- Dan Gillmor --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Feb 9 14:42:18 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA05080 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 14:42:18 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 13:38:53 -0700 From: Joseph Reynolds X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: help References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <36C09CDD.5F1FC6B2@chicoma.la.unm.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Plamen: I have tried and tried to correct this. I am: joseph@chicoma.la.unm.edu , Not: joseph@la.unm.edu even though I seem to be getting my mail correctly. Please help correct this if you can. Joe Reynolds joseph@chicoma.la.unm.edu Plamen Ganev wrote: > > help > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: JOSEPH@LA.UNM.EDU > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Feb 9 16:56:57 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA09675 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 16:56:57 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: From: Mike@Dent.Org Reply-to: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Side by Side Comparisons In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 09 Feb 1999 09:16:07 PST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 22:54:55 +0000 Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <199902092254.WAA25436@mary.g6phf.ampr.org> Precedence: bulk > >At 01:00 PM 2/8/99 +0100, Thomas Sailer wrote: > > > >>Ok, but this is ping time with small packets? > > >UNIX's ping utility uses small packets by default. What we're seeing > >here is the latency. I actually rounded the number; the computer > >measured 5.4 ms. > > Linux and Solaris use 56 data bytes by default, which is 64 bytes > total packet size. You can set it as low a 8 bytes and still get > timing info. My ISP ping times are 40msec with the default 56 > data bytes and 30msec with 8 bytes (128Kbps ISDN). > > What are the boards ping times for 8 byte packets, just for > general interest? I'd guess it would shave a msec off the default > times. > > Giant packets might be of interest too... Ooops, cant remember if we were talking about Wavelan or Proxim cards? Anyways I have a link of about 4km using Wavelan cards (Version 2), here are my results:- First default 56 data bytes --- 10.8.83.1 ping statistics --- 9 packets transmitted, 9 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 2.2/2.2/2.3 ms now 8 data bytes --- 10.8.83.1 ping statistics --- 11 packets transmitted, 11 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 1.8/1.8/1.8 ms now 1472 data bytes (the largest allowed by the Karlbridge box at the other end) --- 10.8.83.1 ping statistics --- 11 packets transmitted, 11 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 17.9/17.9/18.3 ms And if anybody is interested this next test is across 3 Wavelan links, first a traceroute traceroute to 10.8.16.1 (10.8.16.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 10.8.80.1 (10.8.80.1) 2.140 ms 2.111 ms 2.002 ms 2 10.8.34.1 (10.8.34.1) 8.842 ms 8.857 ms 22.999 ms 3 10.8.32.1 (10.8.32.1) 11.147 ms 11.295 ms 11.187 ms 4 10.8.33.1 (10.8.33.1) 8.700 ms 11.386 ms 8.599 ms 5 10.8.17.4 (10.8.17.4) 11.755 ms 11.086 ms 12.040 ms 8 data bytes. --- 10.8.16.1 ping statistics --- 11 packets transmitted, 11 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 6.7/7.2/10.2 ms And just for fun, 30k of data to a Linux box at the other end of the above link:- 30008 bytes from 10.8.240.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=58 time=476.3 ms --- pisa ping statistics --- 11 packets transmitted, 11 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 470.1/516.1/597.1 ms cheers Mike > > Thanks > Andy > > -- > Andrew Burgess > aab@cichlid.com > Available for software contract work: www.scruz.net/~cichlid > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: MIKE@LURPAC.LANCS.AC.UK > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org -- "I remember when NOS was NET and all you got was "Welcome to TTY-link.." " Mike Dent. G6PHF. Morecambe, Lancs. UK. | Mike@Dent.Org AMPRnet=g6phf@gb7mbb.ampr.org | http://www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/dentm/ PGP Fingerprint=44 F5 22 C4 CB A2 3F 9F 73 9C 02 9F 0B 16 55 72 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 10 00:58:46 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA02021 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 00:58:45 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 17:09:28 +0100 From: Stefano Coccon Organization: P.C.E. MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: help References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <36C05DB7.CA43ED95@mail.nauta.it> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Plamen Ganev wrote: > help > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: COCCPCE@TAMATA.NAUTA.IT > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 10 07:05:03 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA18378 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 07:05:02 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Steve Sampson" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Side by Side Comparisons Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 07:02:24 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <001c01be54f5$9a8ff940$87228cd1@dodge.usa-site.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk The Wavelan ping times are quite exceptional! Here's my ping times with wired ethernet: 56 byte packets: 7 packets transmitted, 7 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 2.4/2.4/2.4 ms 8 byte packets: 6 packets transmitted, 6 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 2.2/2.2/2.3 ms 1472 byte packets: 8 packets transmitted, 8 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 8.7/8.9/9.1 ms 30008 byte packets: 15 packets transmitted, 15 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 84.8/87.8/114.2 ms This test was with a Linux OS K6 233 MHz machine to an Ascend Pipeline-50 ISDN router. Now here's the Proxim Symphony ISA card (100ft indoors): (antenna is sitting on my monitor) Note: The Proxim cards seem to vary quite a bit, so a longer ping time was used to smooth the average: 56 byte packets: 39 packets transmitted, 39 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 8.8/15.6/28.3 ms 8 byte packets: 42 packets transmitted, 42 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 8.9/20.9/44.9 ms 1472 byte packets: 30 packets transmitted, 30 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 33.3/37.5/60.3 ms 30008 byte packets: 18 packets transmitted, 18 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 780.6/818.2/913.3 ms This test was run with a Linux OS AMD K6 233 MHz Machine to a Win98 OS AMD K5 133 MHz machine. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Mike@Dent.Org To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Date: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 4:56 PM Subject: [ss] Re: Side by Side Comparisons >Ooops, cant remember if we were talking about Wavelan or Proxim cards? >Anyways I have a link of about 4km using Wavelan cards (Version 2), here are >my results:- --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 10 07:43:36 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA19331 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 07:43:35 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 15:42:19 +0200 From: Catalin Enescu X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Question Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <36C18CBB.90EBF8AA@datek.ro> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hello Can you tell me where I can get a copy of JNOS PC routing software? Best regards, Catalin Enescu -- ________________________________________________________________________ ()() DATEK TELECOM S.A. () Catalin ENESCU - Technical Support Engineer Office: Blvd. N. Titulescu 1 Phone : (40)-1-312.04.01 Bl. A7, Sc. 3, Ap. 62 312.04.02 Bucharest, ROMANIA Fax : (40)-1-312.55.88 Mail: CP 28-02 Bucharest E-mail: cenescu@datek.ro ROMANIA http ://www.datek.ro _________________________________________________________________________ --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 10 09:53:31 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA23130 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:53:31 -0600 (CST) X-Lotus-Fromdomain: LADOTD From: marmento@dotdmail.dotd.state.la.us To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Message-Id: Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:53:01 -0500 Subject: [ss] Re: Leaving [ss] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <86256714.00565FDA.00@notes1.dotd.state.la.us> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk 6969I@lists.tapr.org Michael --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 10 17:52:05 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA07745 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:52:04 -0600 (CST) From: JOHN MALMBERG To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] re: MAIL ALIASING Re: help Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 18:49:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <0095000003959255000002L052*@MHS> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk >I have tried and tried to correct this. I am: > >joseph at chicoma.la.unm.edu > >, Not: >joseph at la.unm.edu > >even though I seem to be getting my mail correctly. Please help correct >this if you can. > >Joe Reynolds >joseph at chicoma.la.unm.edu What you are seeing is your mail service router is aliasing out the specific node name that your mail account is assigned to, and just using the domain name. This is usually done on purpose and usually the users are told to only give out the domain name. Regardless of the server that you are on, all incoming mail goes to the domain server for distribution to the specific mail server. This allows the mail administrators to load balance the system by adding more mail routers or moving users to other systems, with out disrupting mail delivery. It is your local mail administrators that will need to make the change, not the LIST administrators, if you still want to do it. You will also need to use your password to update your entry. You should verify this with your local mail administrators. It is a different case from mine, where the E-MAIL provider was changing the domain to one that did not belong to the organization that I was with. -John AX.25: WB8TYW@K4HRY.#MIDTN.TN.USA.NOAM E-Mail: WB8TYW AT QSL.NET --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Feb 11 07:00:39 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA11873 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 07:00:39 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:58:45 -0000 (GMT) Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: Tobit Computer Co Ltd Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org From: Dirk Koopman To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] 2.4Ghz chipsets? List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: Precedence: bulk An opportunity is presenting itself to put together a network of high speed 'nodes' in the middle of the UK. I would like to explore the possibilities of using 2.4Ghz SS gear, but I will need some higher power than that available under part 15. Here in the UK we share our 2.4Ghz band with ISM but, in theory, could use part 15 stuff there with amplifiers. There are a number of us who would like to put together a Ham 2.4Ghz radio/modem unit, can anybody recommend any of the various chipsets available in particular? Dirk G1TLH --- Dirk-Jan Koopman, Tobit Computer Co Ltd At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Feb 11 08:40:23 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA14741 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:40:23 -0600 (CST) X-Sent-via: StarNet http://www.azstarnet.com/ Message-Id: X-Sender: lylej@pop.azstarnet.com Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 07:25:28 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Lyle Johnson Subject: [ss] Re: 2.4Ghz chipsets? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990211072528.00967be0@pop.azstarnet.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk At work we are using the Harris chipset, added our own PA to bring it to near 1 watt at the antenna. Fairly easy to work with. The HPA chip isn't very good, and the antenna switch IC from Harris is not so great either, but the rest of it seems to be OK. There are design compromises that limit weak signal performance. With omni antennas we got more than 12 km range... Lyle At 12:58 PM 2/11/99 -0000, you wrote: >An opportunity is presenting itself to put together a network of high speed >'nodes' in the middle of the UK. > >I would like to explore the possibilities of using 2.4Ghz SS gear, but I will >need some higher power than that available under part 15. > >Here in the UK we share our 2.4Ghz band with ISM but, in theory, could use >part 15 stuff there with amplifiers. > >There are a number of us who would like to put together a Ham 2.4Ghz >radio/modem unit, can anybody recommend any of the various chipsets available >in particular? > >Dirk G1TLH >--- >Dirk-Jan Koopman, Tobit Computer Co Ltd >At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find >at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer. > > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: LYLEJ@AZSTARNET.COM >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Feb 11 21:31:22 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA10682 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 21:31:21 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:03:46 +0530 (IST) From: Raghuraman To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Max. voice delay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Can anyone help me in knowing what is the max. allowed voice delay. regards raghu --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Feb 12 06:55:34 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA10641 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 06:55:33 -0600 (CST) From: Steve Sampson Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: Max. voice delay To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 06:53:00 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "Raghuraman" at Feb 12, 99 09:03:46 am Content-Type: text List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <199902121253.GAA22807@access.usa-site.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk If you mean full-duplex real-time, then anything over .25 sec becomes annoying. > Can anyone help me in knowing what is the max. allowed voice > delay. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Feb 12 09:08:22 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA14456 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:08:22 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Richard Harrison" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] JNOS Programmer -- Job Opportunity Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:59:58 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01A5_01BE566E.73199400" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <01b501be56a1$44bfdaa0$d1a8c7cf@richard> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01A5_01BE566E.73199400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable US Govt agency intends to use an expanded form of JNOS in a segment of = its national RF link structure. Looking for a programmers/consultants to = work in this effort. Hourly rate and other particulars forthcoming. Interested? Send me an = email with your resume. atecinc@crosslink.net Richard ------=_NextPart_000_01A5_01BE566E.73199400 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

US Govt agency intends to use an expanded form of JNOS in a segment = of its=20 national RF link structure. Looking for a programmers/consultants to = work in=20 this effort.

Hourly rate and other particulars forthcoming. Interested? Send me an = email=20 with your resume.

atecinc@crosslink.net

Richard

 

------=_NextPart_000_01A5_01BE566E.73199400-- --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Feb 12 13:02:40 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA22615 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:02:39 -0600 (CST) From: "Plamen Ganev" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Symphony as a bridge Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:05:14 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <000101be56cb$62c0b9a0$1300a8c0@iceman.c-map.lan> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk How do I calculate the antenna gains that are required to operate a couple of symphony cards that are some 600meters apart? I'll be setting up a bridge using a couple of linux boxes and the symphony cards. The bridge should connect two buildings that are ~600meters apart and their respective wired LANs. However, there is no information on what type of antennas will be necessary to cover this distance (line of sight is there). To be on the safe side, I would have to use a couple of dual gain 1dBi/21dBi directional antennal, but those are quite expensive. The plan is to use the RangeLan2 antennas that should be compatible. A would really appreciate any hints that you might have. Thank you, Plamen. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Feb 12 13:34:10 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA24364 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:34:10 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:32:05 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Brett Glass Subject: [ss] Re: Symphony as a bridge In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.1.19990212122907.03fe3a20@mail.lariat.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk The people who make spread spectrum equipment HATE to give antenna specs or specify ranges. They depend too much on other factors, and FCC rules don't give vendors much flexibility in what they do. (They have to certify EVERY configuration, including base station and antenna.) Also, there are matters such as Fresnel windows (line of sight isn't always enough!). Also, unless this is a licensed ham rig, changing antennas isn't legal. Sad but true. --Brett At 01:05 PM 2/12/99 -0800, Plamen Ganev wrote: >How do I calculate the antenna gains that are required to operate a couple >of symphony cards that are some 600meters apart? > >I'll be setting up a bridge using a couple of linux boxes and the symphony >cards. The bridge should connect two buildings that are ~600meters apart and >their respective wired LANs. > >However, there is no information on what type of antennas will be necessary >to cover this distance (line of sight is there). To be on the safe side, I >would have to use a couple of dual gain 1dBi/21dBi directional antennal, but >those are quite expensive. The plan is to use the RangeLan2 antennas that >should be compatible. > >A would really appreciate any hints that you might have. > >Thank you, >Plamen. > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: BRETT@LARIAT.ORG >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > "Rules? This is the Internet." -- Dan Gillmor --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Feb 12 15:06:47 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA27525 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:06:47 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:05:22 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Balcerski Subject: [ss] down the road... To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <19990212210522.866.rocketmail@send105.yahoomail.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk As I sit here daydreaming about the wonders that the FHSS radio will bring to the amateur radio networking community, I was thinking about the vastly different network topography that will be introduced. Currently, most network are based on a backbone system where links tree out from the center. The FHSS radio will introduce the means to communicate at a speed far exceeding current packet backbones. What I imagine will occur is a "spaghetti" of node links rather than the traditional heirarchy of fast backbone to slower nodes. My question is this: will this require new router protocols to be developed to actually take advantage of the mish-mash of connections that will spring up (hopefully) across the country when the radio is released? Or will we try to fit the new technology into the old paradigm? It seems to me that with enough nodes, a "fastest route" routing algorithm would allow efficient, fault-tolerant use of the network. Please excuse me if this question doesn't belong on this group or if it's already been answered, but I'm really excited about the concept of doing away with the traditional backbone-bottleneck problem. Any information would be appreciated. Thanks! Jeff Balcerski KC8IZX _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Feb 12 15:21:57 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA28151 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:21:57 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:12:17 -0800 From: Jon Roland Subject: [ss] Re: down the road... To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk In response to Jeff Balcerski , we can indeed look forward to being able to institute a network of portable nodes in a wireless internet that has no backbone, but there are several protocols that will need to be established to make it work. For more on that see my paper at http://www.constitution.org/wipnet/wipnet.htm One problem is that if all the nodes are moving around randomly, so that only nodes in contact with one another know who is within reception range of whom, we need a different system than just IP numbers for routing. One solution is position reporting, and sending packets in the general direction of a target position, but then we must contend with network cul-de-sacs, and the need to find paths around temporary gaps in the network. --Jon =================================================================== Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 02/12/99 Time: 13:12:17 http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org =================================================================== --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Feb 12 17:42:20 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA02550 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:42:20 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:37:47 -0600 From: Gerry Creager Organization: DaHouse X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: down the road... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <36C4BB4B.2DA4E60E@cs.tamu.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Jeff Balcerski wrote: > > As I sit here daydreaming about the wonders that the FHSS radio will > bring to the amateur radio networking community, I was thinking about > the vastly different network topography that will be introduced. > Currently, most network are based on a backbone system where links > tree out from the center. The FHSS radio will introduce the means to > communicate at a speed far exceeding current packet backbones. What I > imagine will occur is a "spaghetti" of node links rather than the > traditional heirarchy of fast backbone to slower nodes. > My question is this: will this require new router protocols to be > developed to actually take advantage of the mish-mash of connections > that will spring up (hopefully) across the country when the radio is > released? Or will we try to fit the new technology into the old > paradigm? It seems to me that with enough nodes, a "fastest route" > routing algorithm would allow efficient, fault-tolerant use of the > network. RSPF (Route Shortest Path First) made its debut in NOS/JNOS/TNOS... some years ago. (?Alan Cox?) It bears significant promise for the distributed, non-backbone systems FHSS will allow, but it may remain to be seen if that's the topogoly adopted. It may still be easier to use static routers in an evolution toward pure dynamic routing. Of course, we may want to consider migrating away from pure tcp/ip toward, say, ATM... and allow the disconnected topology to rule in the manner it deems best. 73, gerry n5jxs@tamu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Feb 12 20:10:56 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA06768 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 20:10:56 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: KN6TD@mail.clubnet.net Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:46:35 -0800 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Derek J. Lassen" Subject: [ss] Re: down the road... In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <1293250779-1102122@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Not true. ARP and DHCP (with short address lease times) are adequate to produce connectivity. OSPF will get you routeability. What else do you need? de KN6TD At 01:12 PM 2/12/99 -0800, you wrote: >In response to Jeff Balcerski , we can indeed look forward >to being able to institute a network of portable nodes in a wireless internet >that has no backbone, but there are several protocols that will need to be >established to make it work. For more on that see my paper at >http://www.constitution.org/wipnet/wipnet.htm > >One problem is that if all the nodes are moving around randomly, so that only >nodes in contact with one another know who is within reception range of whom, >we need a different system than just IP numbers for routing. One solution is >position reporting, and sending packets in the general direction of a target >position, but then we must contend with network cul-de-sacs, and the need to >find paths around temporary gaps in the network. > >--Jon > >=================================================================== >Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 >916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 02/12/99 Time: 13:12:17 >http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org >=================================================================== > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: KN6TD@CLUBNET.NET >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Feb 12 20:24:26 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA07084 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 20:24:26 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 18:14:05 -0800 From: Jon Roland Subject: [ss] Re: down the road... To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk In principle, perhaps, but we need to test it in practice for a large network. Consider having 100,000 nodes, all in motion (perhaps flying around in aircraft), each with somewhat limited disk capacity, and each of which wants to send an email message to another randomly-selected node on the network, the location and connectivity of which is not known to the sender. Obviously, each can broadcast a query to the entire network to attempt to establish a chain connecting sender with receiver, but that would become a serious load on available channel capacity if too many were doing so at the same time. Also, the store-and-forward model assumes that if a node is unavailable, the message will be stored at the closest available node, pending reacquisition and transmission. How does the node to hold the message get selected when the location and connectivity of the target is not known to any but perhaps a few nodes that were in recent contact, but which are no longer in contact? We need to test such a system. I expect dynamic routing to need some work to make it robust. --Jon ------------------------ From: "Derek J. Lassen" > ARP and DHCP (with short address lease times) are adequate to produce > connectivity. > > OSPF will get you routeability. > > What else do you need? ---------------End of Original Message----------------- =================================================================== Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 02/12/99 Time: 18:14:05 http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org =================================================================== --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Feb 12 23:09:17 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA11174 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 23:09:17 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: KN6TD@mail.clubnet.net Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 20:55:45 -0800 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Derek J. Lassen" Subject: [ss] Re: down the road... In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <1293240027-1748893@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Very few connects are to random hosts. All hosts are not routers. Routers know about each other. A node whose routing just went stupid, for having moved out of range of its previous authoritative router, will soon discover a new authority, even if it has to tunnel to one. But the fable of a great number of nodes randomly sending to other nodes and demanding passgae is interesting, if only for its value as a negative example. *s) Derek At 06:14 PM 2/12/99 -0800, you wrote: >In principle, perhaps, but we need to test it in practice for a large network. >Consider having 100,000 nodes, all in motion (perhaps flying around in >aircraft), each with somewhat limited disk capacity, and each of which wants >to send an email message to another randomly-selected node on the network, the >location and connectivity of which is not known to the sender. Obviously, each >can broadcast a query to the entire network to attempt to establish a chain >connecting sender with receiver, but that would become a serious load on >available channel capacity if too many were doing so at the same time. Also, >the store-and-forward model assumes that if a node is unavailable, the message >will be stored at the closest available node, pending reacquisition and >transmission. How does the node to hold the message get selected when the >location and connectivity of the target is not known to any but perhaps a few >nodes that were in recent contact, but which are no longer in contact? > >We need to test such a system. I expect dynamic routing to need some work to >make it robust. > >--Jon > >------------------------ > From: "Derek J. Lassen" > >> ARP and DHCP (with short address lease times) are adequate to produce >> connectivity. >> >> OSPF will get you routeability. >> >> What else do you need? > >---------------End of Original Message----------------- > >=================================================================== >Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 >916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 02/12/99 Time: 18:14:05 >http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org >=================================================================== > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: KN6TD@CLUBNET.NET >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Feb 12 23:44:30 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA13882 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 23:44:27 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 21:26:36 -0800 From: Jon Roland Subject: [ss] Re: down the road... To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Derek envisions a different kind of network than I do. In the network I have in mind: All hosts are routers, if they need to be. All routers are hosts, like any others, portable, in motion, and not always accessible. All host-routers are equal, and no host has a privileged or authoritative status, other than that conferred on it by other hosts, on a host-by-host basis, from one message to another. The host-routers don't know about each other, other than what they can learn from messages received over the network. Each host can authenticate itself using a Diffie-Hellman protocol (such as RSA or PGP). Senders and receivers have each other's public keys, and perhaps the public keys of every other host on the network. All host-routers are assumed to be insecure, subject to spoofing or interdiction by hostile parties, and to capture of the operator's private key. --Jon ------------------------ From: "Derek J. Lassen" > Very few connects are to random hosts. > > All hosts are not routers. > > Routers know about each other. > > A node whose routing just went stupid, for having moved out of range of its > previous authoritative router, will soon discover a new authority, even if > it has to tunnel to one. ---------------End of Original Message----------------- =================================================================== Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 02/12/99 Time: 21:26:37 http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org =================================================================== --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Feb 13 16:12:44 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA07497 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 16:12:43 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: vulture.eecs.umich.edu: compuman owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 17:10:29 -0500 (EST) From: Eric Glover X-Sender: compuman@vulture.eecs.umich.edu To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: down the road... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > One problem is that if all the nodes are moving around randomly, so that only > nodes in contact with one another know who is within reception range of whom, > we need a different system than just IP numbers for routing. One solution is > position reporting, and sending packets in the general direction of a target > position, but then we must contend with network cul-de-sacs, and the need to > find paths around temporary gaps in the network. If the movement of nodes is slow enough we can use an intelligent routing protocol like gated..We can put in expiration times, and have TTLs to ensure that as nodes DO move we don't have loops. If packets are forwarded, as they get closer to the destination the routing nodes will have the most recent information. The problems arise when we do have loops because nodes are moving in/out of range....however it would not be too hard to modify the protocol/routing information slightly to keep track of the relative stability of a node, so you "prefer" not to send it to either slow, or rapidly changing nodes... I have not read the URL listed, so this might be a little out of context...If you have any questions please feel free to ask me :-) CYA, Eric > > --Jon > > =================================================================== > Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 > 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 02/12/99 Time: 13:12:17 > http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org > =================================================================== > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: COMPUMAN@EECS.UMICH.EDU > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Feb 13 21:02:57 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA15925 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:02:56 -0600 (CST) From: "Andrew Cornwall" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 22:59:41 -0400 Subject: [ss] Standardized Addressing Reply-to: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" CC: cornwaab@ednet.ns.ca Priority: normal In-reply-to: Message-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hello, I am hesitant to post this message because there must be something wrong in it. I have not seen any reference to a standard for amateur radio network addressing on the SS listserv, so I am wary about introducing the topic. Either there is a horrible flaw in the logic of what I am proposing or it has already being adopted and I am far behind the pack. My worst fear is that I have made a really stupid mathematical error which has lead me astray. If the idea has merit I want to initiate discussion. Otherwise, I welcome your response to learn more about the topic of amateur radio network addressing - or mathematics, as the case may be. Given the experimental nature of amateur radio digital networks, with very few participants, the need for an easy way to assign addresses may seem premature. It is my opinion, however, that once high speed, and reasonably powerful, digital transceivers and software become readily available amateur radio networking is going to flourish. Then a mechanism for assigning network addresses will become a major consideration if not figured out beforehand. I was reflecting on the presentation at the 1998 DCC by Norito Nemoto who proposed an alternative identification system than IP addressing for amateur radio network packet routing. Mr. Nemoto recommended that the amateur radio station callsign be used instead. The advantages of using the call sign is that it is issued routinely by governments to all authorized amateur radio operators and it is intended to be unique world wide. The administration of call signs is tightly regulated, and does not have the additional overhead now associated with the administration of IP addresses for the Internet. It seems, however, that abandoning the IP address structure could result in the need to modify many existing IP-based programs written for the Internet. New Internet software would also have to be modified. Is not there a way to retain the IP address 32 bit format and incorporate the callsign as well? One scheme that comes to mind is to reformulate call signs into IP-like addresses using a standardized translation algorythm. If your call sign is XXX123 then your amateur radio network address would be nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn. Conversly, if your amateur radio network address is nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn then your call sign must be XXX123. As mentioned below, there could be a secondary address component to the amateur radio network address. I am not equipped to propose an algorythm here. It would likely be quite discontinuous, with a number of parts to account for how call signs are populated in each country and to handle special communications such as broadcast messages. From a mathematical perspective, the 32 bit IP address space is big enough to go around, with 4,294,967,295 individual addresses. The present amateur radio call sign format of 6 alphanumaric characters (each having 36 posible values) comprises 2,176,782,336 unique call sign addreses (i.e 36^6). Thus, every concievable call sign could be represented in the 32 bit address structure. In fact, there are gaps in the alphanumeric sequence in the international allocation of call signs which means that the total number of posible call sign addresses would be closer to 1.35 billion. Some of the international allocation is dedicated to commercial broadcasting and other non-amateur applications. The actual address space needed for all of amateur radio would be much less than 1.35 billion. This means that there is room within the 32 bit amateur radio network address for each ham to have multiple addresses by default. These may be like the secondary IDs in packet radio, which the amateur can assign as he/she sees fit, e.g. base station, mobile, portable, router, node, whatever. If an amateur needs even more network addresses, he/she can acquire another call sign. For the most part, there is no need to be concerned that amateur network addresses will overlap those on the Internet, because the two networks should be physically separate. Amateurs use primarily radio, the Internet is primarily hard wired. In those instances where the Internet is communicated by radio it does not utilize an amateur radio frequency, nor would it likely duplicate the amateur radio network modulation and data transmission formats. As far as the Internet is concerned, the amateur radio network would be an exotic private network, with its own 32 bit addressing insulated from the Internet itself. There would, however, have to be reserved amateur radio network addresses to be used for gateways to the Internet. Their number would be relatively small and may comprise, or be a subset of, the 44 series class A addressing now used by radio amateurs. I do not know who would control the allocation of these addresses, maybe the Internet Network Information Centre (InterNIC), maybe regional amateur radio network coordinators. But in any event, only a comparatively few gateway addresses would be needed. There would be some implicit geographical hierarchical structure to amateur radio network addresses from the fact that they would be derived from the international allocation of call signs. Within some countries, for example Canada, the first three characters of a call sign also have regional significance. In general, however, it would not be practical to try to force the amateur radio network address structure to conform to regional domains. As indicated in recent discussions here, it should be assumed that amateurs are mobile and would take their call signs and network addresses with them when temporarily away from home. The implementation of call sign based network addresses does not seem all that difficult. Once a suitable algorythm is determined it can be be adopted by amateurs locally. Presumably, the algorythm would not, for the time being, assign network addresses in the 44 class A domain. Some thought will have to go into determining the algorythm, but I would hope that after suitable examination and discussion of the various constraints one could be formulated that would be universally acceptable because it is workable and, simply, that it exists. Andrew Cornwall /VE1COR cornwaab@ednet.ns.ca Andrew Cornwall Wellington, Nova Scotia Canada --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Feb 14 02:14:32 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA01342 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 02:14:31 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: KN6TD@mail.clubnet.net Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 00:05:40 -0800 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Derek J. Lassen" Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <1293142575-5744382@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I would like to point out that amatuers already have an address space, specifically 44.n.n.n Call signs are (in theory) mapable to IP address. Four/Four net has an 8 bit network part and a 24 bit host part. This gives us 16 million potential hosts. Of course this address space is sparse. It it subdivided, given to address coordinators to dole out. This is all well established. Go to ftp://ftp.ucsd.edu/hamradio/amprhosts to get the mapping. Next, consider that AX.25 is far from the ideal protocol to use for IP over RF. I happen to think that ATM is a far better protocol. Each cell is 53 bytes long, 48 of which is payload. Of the 5 bytes of header, 24 bits are for addressing, while the rest is used for link management. The addressing bits actually identify which stream the cell belongs to, effectivly seperating routing and switching. Routing happens on link establishment, not in real time. It could be triggered by a sudden realization of link status = FUBAR via repeated drops in C/N or higher layers going brain dead. Switching happens in real time. Packets come in, packets go out. They don't hang around (except for rate adjustment). There is no good reason to put station call signs in every packet. Every ten minutes, CW identify the transmitter. You'd still have address 000...000 and 111...111 be recognized as multicast - all nodes have a supervisory cell consumer - the control fabric. At the edges of the RF zone would be RF vis wireline gateways. Due to all the commercialism and smut flying around on The Internet most amatuers are not willing to accept random traffic - refered to as inbound peering. Basically, the gateway routers would accept routes only from preauthorized IP addresses. Gotta go. I'm getting sleepy. (s) Derek At 10:59 PM 2/13/99 -0400, you wrote: >Hello, > > I am hesitant to post this message because >there must be something wrong in it. I have not seen >any reference to a standard for amateur radio >network addressing on the SS listserv, so I am wary >about introducing the topic. Either there is a horrible >flaw in the logic of what I am proposing or it has >already being adopted and I am far behind the pack. >My worst fear is that I have made a really stupid >mathematical error which has lead me astray. If the >idea has merit I want to initiate discussion. >Otherwise, I welcome your response to learn more >about the topic of amateur radio network addressing >- or mathematics, as the case may be. Given the >experimental nature of amateur radio digital >networks, with very few participants, the need for an >easy way to assign addresses may seem premature. >It is my opinion, however, that once high speed, and >reasonably powerful, digital transceivers and >software become readily available amateur radio >networking is going to flourish. Then a mechanism >for assigning network addresses will become a major >consideration if not figured out beforehand. > > I was reflecting on the presentation at the >1998 DCC by Norito Nemoto who proposed an >alternative identification system than IP addressing >for amateur radio network packet routing. Mr. >Nemoto recommended that the amateur radio >station callsign be used instead. The advantages of >using the call sign is that it is issued routinely by >governments to all authorized amateur radio >operators and it is intended to be unique world wide. >The administration of call signs is tightly regulated, >and does not have the additional overhead now >associated with the administration of IP addresses >for the Internet. > > It seems, however, that abandoning the IP >address structure could result in the need to modify >many existing IP-based programs written for the >Internet. New Internet software would also have to >be modified. Is not there a way to retain the IP >address 32 bit format and incorporate the callsign as >well? > > One scheme that comes to mind is to >reformulate call signs into IP-like addresses using a >standardized translation algorythm. If your call sign >is XXX123 then your amateur radio network >address would be nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn. Conversly, if >your amateur radio network address is >nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn then your call sign must be >XXX123. As mentioned below, there could be a >secondary address component to the amateur radio >network address. I am not equipped to propose an >algorythm here. It would likely be quite >discontinuous, with a number of parts to account for >how call signs are populated in each country and to >handle special communications such as broadcast >messages. > > From a mathematical perspective, the 32 bit >IP address space is big enough to go around, with >4,294,967,295 individual addresses. The present >amateur radio call sign format of 6 alphanumaric >characters (each having 36 posible values) comprises >2,176,782,336 unique call sign addreses (i.e 36^6). >Thus, every concievable call sign could be >represented in the 32 bit address structure. In fact, >there are gaps in the alphanumeric sequence in the >international allocation of call signs which means >that the total number of posible call sign addresses >would be closer to 1.35 billion. Some of the >international allocation is dedicated to commercial >broadcasting and other non-amateur applications. >The actual address space needed for all of amateur >radio would be much less than 1.35 billion. This >means that there is room within the 32 bit amateur >radio network address for each ham to have multiple >addresses by default. These may be like the >secondary IDs in packet radio, which the amateur >can assign as he/she sees fit, e.g. base station, >mobile, portable, router, node, whatever. If an >amateur needs even more network addresses, he/she >can acquire another call sign. > > For the most part, there is no need to be >concerned that amateur network addresses will >overlap those on the Internet, because the two >networks should be physically separate. Amateurs >use primarily radio, the Internet is primarily hard >wired. In those instances where the Internet is >communicated by radio it does not utilize an >amateur radio frequency, nor would it likely >duplicate the amateur radio network modulation and >data transmission formats. As far as the Internet is >concerned, the amateur radio network would be an >exotic private network, with its own 32 bit >addressing insulated from the Internet itself. > > There would, however, have to be reserved >amateur radio network addresses to be used for >gateways to the Internet. Their number would be >relatively small and may comprise, or be a subset of, >the 44 series class A addressing now used by radio >amateurs. I do not know who would control the >allocation of these addresses, maybe the Internet >Network Information Centre (InterNIC), maybe >regional amateur radio network coordinators. But in >any event, only a comparatively few gateway >addresses would be needed. > > There would be some implicit geographical >hierarchical structure to amateur radio network >addresses from the fact that they would be derived >from the international allocation of call signs. Within >some countries, for example Canada, the first three >characters of a call sign also have regional >significance. In general, however, it would not be >practical to try to force the amateur radio network >address structure to conform to regional domains. >As indicated in recent discussions here, it should be >assumed that amateurs are mobile and would take >their call signs and network addresses with them >when temporarily away from home. > > The implementation of call sign based >network addresses does not seem all that difficult. >Once a suitable algorythm is determined it can be be >adopted by amateurs locally. Presumably, the >algorythm would not, for the time being, assign >network addresses in the 44 class A domain. Some >thought will have to go into determining the >algorythm, but I would hope that after suitable >examination and discussion of the various >constraints one could be formulated that would be >universally acceptable because it is workable and, >simply, that it exists. > >Andrew Cornwall /VE1COR > >cornwaab@ednet.ns.ca > >Andrew Cornwall >Wellington, Nova Scotia >Canada > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: KN6TD@CLUBNET.NET >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Feb 14 07:06:57 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA15442 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 07:06:57 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 07:03:21 -0600 From: Gerry Creager Organization: DaHouse X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <36C6C999.8BDAA53B@cs.tamu.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk "Derek J. Lassen" wrote: > ... > > Next, consider that AX.25 is far from the ideal protocol to use for IP over > RF. I happen to think that ATM is a far better protocol. Each cell is 53 > bytes long, 48 of which is payload. Of the 5 bytes of header, 24 bits are > for addressing, while the rest is used for link management. The addressing > bits actually identify which stream the cell belongs to, effectivly > seperating routing and switching. Routing happens on link establishment, > not in real time. It could be triggered by a sudden realization of link > status = FUBAR via repeated drops in C/N or higher layers going brain dead. > Switching happens in real time. Packets come in, packets go out. They don't > hang around (except for rate adjustment). There is no good reason to put > station call signs in every packet. Every ten minutes, CW identify the > transmitter. ATM offers a variety of potential benefits to this picture. gerry --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Feb 14 08:59:57 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA18055 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 08:59:57 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Steve Sampson" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 08:56:55 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <001101be582a$43b10d20$87228cd1@dodge.usa-site.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > Given the >experimental nature of amateur radio digital >networks, with very few participants, the need for an >easy way to assign addresses may seem premature. >It is my opinion, however, that once high speed, and >reasonably powerful, digital transceivers and >software become readily available amateur radio >networking is going to flourish. Then a mechanism >for assigning network addresses will become a major >consideration if not figured out beforehand. The main purpose of a callsign transmission is to identify the station when it interferes with another. This is often handy on VHF when say, one Police department is swamped by another 200 miles away. In the era of Spread Spectrum devices, radios are designed to operate in the whole band. There is no such thing as interference to compare with narrow-band systems. This callsign business is going to get us in hot water. I've heard some say that they want us to identify in narrow-band when we operate in Spread-Spectrum! We don't want morse code as part of our Spread Spectrum allocation. There is no need to identify more than once every 10 minutes in any case. We have the case now, where people ID every packet broadcast, and then again in Morse Code every 10 minutes. This is right out of the 60's... > I was reflecting on the presentation at the >1998 DCC by Norito Nemoto who proposed an >alternative identification system than IP addressing >for amateur radio network packet routing. Mr. >Nemoto recommended that the amateur radio >station callsign be used instead. The packet address is about 56 bits. Ethernet is only 48 bits. > The advantages of >using the call sign is that it is issued routinely by >governments to all authorized amateur radio >operators and it is intended to be unique world wide. >The administration of call signs is tightly regulated, >and does not have the additional overhead now >associated with the administration of IP addresses >for the Internet. The disadvantage is, that your network address would be fixed, rather than dynamic, and controlled by a tightly regulated government agency. > It seems, however, that abandoning the IP >address structure could result in the need to modify >many existing IP-based programs written for the >Internet. New Internet software would also have to >be modified. Is not there a way to retain the IP >address 32 bit format and incorporate the callsign as >well? Yes, you can encode the callsign into 32 bits. Does this callsign idea mean that it has to be readable directly, or can it be decoded? No one is going to operate with a modified IP. If it is not a standard, it will fail. > For the most part, there is no need to be >concerned that amateur network addresses will >overlap those on the Internet, because the two >networks should be physically separate. Amateurs >use primarily radio, the Internet is primarily hard >wired. In those instances where the Internet is >communicated by radio it does not utilize an >amateur radio frequency, nor would it likely >duplicate the amateur radio network modulation and >data transmission formats. As far as the Internet is >concerned, the amateur radio network would be an >exotic private network, with its own 32 bit >addressing insulated from the Internet itself. The network has to be routable though. Even though it's on a different frequency, or format, an internet node going to an Amateur Radio node will have to know how to get there, and you can't duplicate anything at the routing level. For HF Spread Spectrum each node would probably be routable, while on VHF and higher, a mobile node can use any range of address a node issues, because it is basically point-to-point. The 44-Net (amprnet) Class-A address, was basically converted to a Class-B address, by dividing up the second octets between states and countries, and then these entities converted it to a Class-C address, in which the end-user may get two or four static addresses grudgingly from the Administrator. Your routable IP address is probably a cable modem or an ISP dial-up. The radio side can be locally administered. Using any of the private IP ranges provided in the RFC's. > There would, however, have to be reserved >amateur radio network addresses to be used for >gateways to the Internet. Their number would be >relatively small and may comprise, or be a subset of, >the 44 series class A addressing now used by radio >amateurs. I do not know who would control the >allocation of these addresses, maybe the Internet >Network Information Centre (InterNIC), maybe >regional amateur radio network coordinators. But in >any event, only a comparatively few gateway >addresses would be needed. Envision a cable modem or dialup with its dynamic or fixed "routable" IP address. Then envision 10 Hams roaming the streets, all within range of the routable node. This routable node listens for stations who want a mobile IP, and supplies an address to them which times out after a couple of hours. The routable node then masquerades the private IP range. Thus any mobile node can reach the internet with any IP address the routable node likes. It could be 44-Net, 10-Net, 172.16-Net, anything. The problem with masquerade, is that the masquerade node is not routable from the internet. One masqueraded node in Allentown, could not exchange packets with another in Provo. But I'm guessing with 32,000 ports, someone can resolve that issue :-) >As indicated in recent discussions here, it should be >assumed that amateurs are mobile and would take >their call signs and network addresses with them >when temporarily away from home. I would rather use a DHCP type of algorithm. Not a fixed address. That is, a mobile user will ask for an IP, and the nearest routable neighbor will provide it. This brings up an interesting problem, suppose I don't need a routable node? Suppose I just want to talk or exchange pictures? Thus, the request for a temporary IP must be coded to ask for a routable node, or just a local node. Better yet, would be to just use a multicast address, or develop a table of heard stations on each of the 16 or so channels (LAN's) in the radio. Which brings up a side point--Proxim, and I'm sure others, use a privacy code to XOR the data with. In Proxim, the code is 0x010203 (I think) if you use a NULL for the password. Probably something that is non-standard... > The implementation of call sign based >network addresses does not seem all that difficult. >Once a suitable algorythm is determined it can be be >adopted by amateurs locally. Presumably, the >algorythm would not, for the time being, assign >network addresses in the 44 class A domain. Some >thought will have to go into determining the >algorythm, but I would hope that after suitable >examination and discussion of the various >constraints one could be formulated that would be >universally acceptable because it is workable and, >simply, that it exists. As you can tell from my previous comments, I don't think a static system is the way to go. I would favor a completely dynamic system of IP addresses, and thus could not be callsign based. As you enter a region, you take on that regions network. You should not try to drop a foriegn network into a LAN. It is more work to make the foriegn node mesh, and less work to issue a temporary IP. And finally, it would take 10's of years to get Amateurs to agree to any proposed algorithm, which would be obsolete when it was released. With this scheme, if we are forced to identify with morse code, then we can issue a 20 WPM ident, with that wonderful callsign. > >Andrew Cornwall /VE1COR Apologize for the length of my reply, and yes, I haven't read anything about Mobile IP, or listened to the concepts... This is merely off the cuff. Steve Sampson, N5OWK --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Feb 14 21:34:58 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA15037 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 21:34:57 -0600 (CST) From: cornwaab@ednet.ns.ca To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 23:36:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing Priority: normal In-reply-to: Message-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hello, I am pleased that my proposal for standardized IP-like, 32 bit, addressing for amateur radio networks (ARN addresses) has generated a few responses. By way of clarification, I want to expand on what I said earlier and address some of the points that have been made. The algorithm for mapping ARN addresses to call signs would include every possible call sign that government authorities (e.g. FCC) may issue. As I noted previously, the 32 bit address space is sufficient to represent every conceivable call sign several times, thus each ham would automatically have multiple unique ARB addresses to 'play with'. The algorithm would be publically available to download and run on the Internet or ARN servers. The code for the algorithm would skip over, i.e. not assign, ARN numbers that would be used for mulitcasting, Internet interfacing, etc. There will be a job to determine just what those code combinations (000...000, 111...111, loopback, etc,) might be in the context of amateur radio networking. I am not sure that the subnetworking concepts of the Internet would apply to the mobile amateur radio world. In any case, the algorithm could be fairly simple. In its crudest and least efficient form comprising a program of six or seven nested loops with maybe a dozen (?) IF (or CASE) conditions to step past the reserved ARN number combinations. This algorithm would be reversible. That is you could input a call sign and it would identify an ARN address (or multiple addresses if more than one is calculated per call sign). Conversely, you could input an ARN address and it would identify a call sign. Either way the algorithm works in exactly the same manner and is unambiguous. Linking the ARN number to call signs raises the prospect that call signs, as such, are redundant in the amateur radio adaption of TCP/IP communication! The ARN is sufficient to identify the transmission of an amateur radio station. Whether the FCC will accept this idea as a solution to the "you must identify every 10 minutes" problem will have to be seen. With tweeking, the algorithm could be made fairly fast and be built into the routing function. If a packet has an originator ARN number that does not correspond to a valid call sign in the official government issued call sign data base then it does not get routed any further. The advantage of the pre-assignment of ARN addresses is that there is no need for administration by amateurs. And this would be true world-wide. I am under the impression that the current administration of AMPR.ORG IP numbers in the 44.n.n.n IP allocation is not perfect even in the United States and Canada. In countries which are less advanced the administration may be even more casual. As long as amateur radio TCP/IP communications is primarily local the existence of duplicate IP numbers in different regions (even within a country) is not likely a problem. Because there are very few radio amateurs who currently communicate digitally using TCP/IP, the administrative work of allocating addresses is probably not that big a burden. My prediction is, however, that given the availability of suitable digital communications equipment, and here is where spread spectrum is involved, amateur radio networking will flourish within several years. Network communications will be international and every ham will want an IP (or ARN) address or two to be able to use this facility now or at some point in the future. This is when the inadequate administrative resources will become a big problem and a big bottleneck. Indeed, problems will compound themselves. My proposal is not to solve any problem of running out of IP addresses for hams. There are roughly 16 million addresses in the Class A, '44' space designated for amateur radio. If at some time 0.2% of the world's population decide to take up amateur radio then there may be a shortage of traditional IP addresses. The problem that may occur sooner, however, because the '44' series IP addresses have already been allocated internationally, and some countries will run out of IP addresses to dispense sooner than others. It is a thought that pre- assigning ARN addresses according to a call sign-based algorithm would mean that there could never be a shortage anywhere. There appears to be some sentiment to stay with the '44' series of IP addresses for amateur radio networks in order to be in synchronization with the Internet. This would be a good thing if you want eventually transparent digital communications between amateur radio and the Internet. My guess is that within twenty, or so, years the Internet is going to become the communications medium for everything, data, telephony, tv, whatever. There will be mobile Internet access and roaming. Some would say the easier that it is for amateurs to make links to the resources on the Internet (now and in the future) the better. Others want amateur radio networks to be unique, with essentially home- grown resources. In the latter case, it does not matter that IP addresses and ARN addresses would, for the most part, duplicate each other. There will be a need, however, for amateur radio networks to access the Internet to route traffic 'over the hill' or between continents, but on the Internet side this could involve addresses, e.g. '44' series, that by agreement would not be utilized for networking on the radio side. These Internet linking IP addresses would be reserved, and not assigned, in the ARN address algorithm. I have not given much thought to the issue of amateur radio being intimately integrated into the Internet. My gut reaction is that it would not be much fun. I do not know how using ATM for bare packet communications would obviate the need for IP addressing and transport quality control. I think that ATM is in a different layer than TCP/IP. It has been a long time since I looked into ATM and I may need to be educated in this regard. In my opinion, a lot of thought needs to go into the advantages and disadvantages of static verses dynamic addressing. In my proposal the assignment of addresses would be static. Would routing bog down if addresses are static? Indeed, packet radio addressing, now by call sign, is static, with hams attaching themselves to various mail servers during their travels. I am getting tired. Enough for tonight. Thank you for reading this message. --- Andy / VE1COR --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Feb 14 22:43:31 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA17261 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:43:30 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: X-Sender: smorris@pop.mindspring.com Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 23:46:14 -0500 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "smorris@mindspring.com" Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.1.19990214233603.0097e530@pop.mindspring.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I have not been home this past week and was able to just review it. I want to provide the following for thought: 1) With one address per call sign you are limiting the radio user for only one radio. 2) If you generate IP addresses based on call sign then there is really no distibuted addressing, especially since the FCC does not require you to request a new callsign when you move. So you could not subnet based on area at least. If you assign addresses without the thought of subnetting then every device within the 44.0.0.0 range is on one IP network. Only one gateway could be on the Internet to connect the Internet to the Amateur radio 44.0.0.0 network. Also as a result of being one network then all traffic would have what is called one "Broadcast domain". This is a big problem, because in a network any broadcast a device sends out must be sent to every device. Even if you "bridge" or use a "switching bridge" on the network, broadcasts(IP broadcasts) still go out everywhere. One request would have to go everywhere across the world. You mention about spearate from the internet. If that is so then we could use any address we wish, and not just the 44.0.0.0 address. These are just some of my thoughts. If you don't mind I would like to post again once I have given some more thought. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Feb 15 08:54:33 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA17278 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:54:33 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:52:38 +0100 From: Thomas Sailer Organization: IfE X-Accept-Language: de,fr,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <36C834B6.EF0A84DD@ife.ee.ethz.ch> Precedence: bulk "Derek J. Lassen" wrote: > I would like to point out that amatuers already have an address space, > specifically 44.n.n.n Which makes me wonder if we have an IPv6 address space (apart from the v4 compatibility range). > Call signs are (in theory) mapable to IP address. Four/Four net has an 8 > bit network part and a 24 bit host part. This gives us 16 million potential > hosts. Of course this address space is sparse. It it subdivided, given to > address coordinators to dole out. This is all well established. > > Go to ftp://ftp.ucsd.edu/hamradio/amprhosts to get the mapping. Too bad this system doesn't work so well in practice, due to the sometimes lacking responsiveness of the coordinators and the much too dynamic network, i.e. individual users far too often changing their connectivity. Some sort of dynamic allocation seems much better to me. > Next, consider that AX.25 is far from the ideal protocol to use for IP over > RF. I happen to think that ATM is a far better protocol. Each cell is 53 But you need something below ATM, as can be seen in the dozens of research projects on wireless ATM currently under way. > bytes long, 48 of which is payload. Of the 5 bytes of header, 24 bits are > for addressing, while the rest is used for link management. The addressing A FlexNet compressed AX.25 header is 8 bytes per up to 300 byte packet, which is less overhead than ATM alone. ATM does not make sense if you don't do QoS, and IMHO isn't much fun at rates less than 1MBPS. Tom --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Feb 15 19:00:23 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA08146 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 19:00:23 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Steve Sampson" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:57:21 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <001401be5947$4f1e79e0$87228cd1@dodge.usa-site.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk >> I would like to point out that amatuers already have an address space, >> specifically 44.n.n.n > >Which makes me wonder if we have an IPv6 address space (apart from >the v4 compatibility range). You won't need it. >> Call signs are (in theory) mapable to IP address. Four/Four net has an 8 >> bit network part and a 24 bit host part. This gives us 16 million potential >> hosts. Of course this address space is sparse. It it subdivided, given to >> address coordinators to dole out. This is all well established. >> >> Go to ftp://ftp.ucsd.edu/hamradio/amprhosts to get the mapping. > >Too bad this system doesn't work so well in practice, due to the >sometimes lacking responsiveness of the coordinators and the much >too dynamic network, i.e. individual users far too often changing >their connectivity. Some sort of dynamic allocation seems much >better to me. I agree. The current encap system is antiquated and doesn't work. It's secretive, and manual. Two things that put anything to death. Basically what we have are a bunch of gateway nodes that share encap tables who route amongst each other, but anyone else must first go to UCSD and if they aren't broke, make the 12 node hop there before getting onto the amprnet. It's completely bogus as we approach the year 2000. I finally just gave up and set up a tunnel to Dallas, a tunnel to Tulsa, and an amprnet tunnel to New Hampshire :-) I let him do all the hocus-pocus coordination, he seems to like it. I think we could do the same thing with using SSH in some way (I haven't thought about it, maybe PPP over SSH..). I'm still of the old mentality, that is, a set of local LAN's that are connected via wireline. I think this is good for emergencies, and is good for connectivity within the LAN. I don't believe all this Mobile moving around is going to change anything. I would like to have a 2 meter 50 Watt Frequency Hopper that can handle at least 1.6 Mbps. We should be able to use 144 - 148 and no one would ever notice, just provide an operator menu to block out frequencies that would cause others to not enjoy our being neighbors. I'd really like the FCC to give Hams access to the unused TV channels in each market. That way they wouldn't go to waste like they are now. Let us use up to 50 Watts and get rid of that "National Park system". Same with HF, I would love to have the ARRL get off their Morse Code Ass and get us a bunch of discrete frequencies we can hop on, as most Hams are entrenched in their "NET" mentality, and they ain't moving till the fricking die... Steve --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Feb 15 19:07:40 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA08613 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 19:07:40 -0600 (CST) From: "Andrew Cornwall" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:02:03 -0400 Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing Reply-to: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: Message-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hello, I would like to offer the following comments to the posting below. 1. There appears to be room for about three Amateur Radio Network (ARN) 32 bit addresses for each ham by default. An analysis of how each country issues call signs to broadcasters and other non-amateur users may mean that there are blocks of call signs that do not, and will never, be issued to a ham. This creates the potential for more ARNs per ham. Certainly in Canada hams utilize only a small block of the potential call signs that may ever be issued here. 2. Distributed addressing would not occur. Are amateur radio IP addresses distributed regionally now? Maybe in terms of states or subdistricts but not in terms of how subregional routing patterns may emerge in the future. 3. Yes, it would be difficult to subnet on the basis of IP addresses. But hierarchical subnetting assumes a very structured network architecture. If IP addresses are static, as they are now, then you cannot move to another server in a subnet sense because you would not conform to the subnet bit pattern. (By the way, subnetting by bit pattern can waste a lot of IP addresses.) It seems to me that subnetting can occur with static and varied ARN addresses, but it would require registering IP adddresses individually to each subnet. 4. Broadcasting by common bit pattern, the way it is done now would not be practical. Some other way would have to be worked out based on the 'server sites' where ARN addresses are registered. Thanks for the opportunity to respond. --- Andy / VE1COR Date sent: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 23:46:14 -0500 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "smorris@mindspring.com" Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing Send reply to: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" > > I have not been home this past week and was able to just review it. > > I want to provide the following for thought: > > 1) With one address per call sign you are limiting the radio user for only > one radio. > > 2) If you generate IP addresses based on call sign then there is really no > distibuted addressing, especially since the FCC does not require you to > request a new callsign when you move. So you could not subnet based on > area at least. If you assign addresses without the thought of subnetting > then every device within the 44.0.0.0 range is on one IP network. Only > one gateway could be on the Internet to connect the Internet to the > Amateur radio 44.0.0.0 network. Also as a result of being one network > then all traffic would have what is called one "Broadcast domain". This > is a big problem, because in a network any broadcast a device sends out > must be sent to every device. Even if you "bridge" or use a "switching > bridge" on the network, broadcasts(IP broadcasts) still go out everywhere. > One request would have to go everywhere across the world. You mention > about spearate from the internet. If that is so then we could use any > address we wish, and not just the 44.0.0.0 address. > > These are just some of my thoughts. If you don't mind I would like to > post again once I have given some more thought. > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: CORNWAAB@EDNET.NS.CA > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > Andrew Cornwall Wellington, Nova Scotia Canada --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Feb 16 00:04:21 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA26064 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:04:20 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:33:02 +0530 (IST) From: Raghuraman To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] CDMA receiver, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk What kind of receiver will be optimal, for CDMA in indoor environment, where the average multipath delay is 50 nsec and max delay is 300 nsec. I don think one can go for rake receivers. Can some help me out in this. regards raghu --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Feb 16 03:51:50 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA09676 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 03:51:49 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: KN6TD@mail.clubnet.net Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 01:44:10 -0800 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Derek J. Lassen" Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <1292963952-6250290@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk The 44 net is no longer class A. Nor is it B or C or D. These terms are obsolete. What we have now is called "Classless Inter Domain Routing ("CIDeR"). 44 net is called 44/8. The Ampr.Org net is not a subnet so much as an internet. A segmented internet. The subnets of *.ampr.org are (incompletely) interconnected via gateways connected to The Internet and thru tunnels. Ideally, the router at the gateway nearest your host will be named in your host's "default router" list (for 44.0.0.0/8). If not, your host could discover the address of the closest router via ARP. The gateway routers would want to verify that the host that is arp'ing is valid, probably thru some kind of shared secret handshake (eg public key). This is unique to ampr.org gateways. I have heard of gateways which have "blessed station" lists. Some of them just bang the FCC's data base and assume that no spoofing happens. I think this is a little lax. ;) There is no need to broadcast packets all around the world. If the gateway doesn't know the host, it'll ask its default gateway. If the default gateway is clueless, it'll ask its default gateway. This continues until a so called authoritative router is found (ie the router with no default gateway) (for 44.0.0.0 this is at ucsd.edu (btw, I think it is bigmamma.ucsd.edu, but I haven't checked lately). Unfortunately, there is no requirement to actually have hardware to get a 44 allocation. Or reachability. Or even the intent to ever have it. So just because you've built a good node doesn't mean that there is a router nearby. Alas.... 73 Derek KN6TD --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Feb 16 04:23:00 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA10213 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 04:22:59 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:21:26 +0100 From: Thomas Sailer Organization: IfE X-Accept-Language: de,fr,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <36C946A6.A417165B@ife.ee.ethz.ch> Precedence: bulk Steve Sampson wrote: > >Which makes me wonder if we have an IPv6 address space (apart from > >the v4 compatibility range). > > You won't need it. If you lease addresses dynamically, then indeed we won't need it, but if we wanted to sensibly put the callsign into the IP address (eg. for ident purposes), then yes, we'd need it. Tom --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Feb 16 09:25:07 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA17655 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:25:07 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: vulture.eecs.umich.edu: compuman owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:22:38 -0500 (EST) From: Eric Glover X-Sender: compuman@vulture.eecs.umich.edu To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Thomas Sailer wrote: > Steve Sampson wrote: > > > >Which makes me wonder if we have an IPv6 address space (apart from > > >the v4 compatibility range). > > > > You won't need it. > > If you lease addresses dynamically, then indeed we won't need it, > but if we wanted to sensibly put the callsign into the IP address > (eg. for ident purposes), then yes, we'd need it. > So what about the idea of having some DNS serving names based on Call Signs? Or something similar so people can have more than one address? So maybe we could have X.somewhere.org Where X is your call sign, and if you have more than one address you could do X.X.soumewhere.org. This way we can always find people by call sign, and we would only need as many addresses as there are users of the system, as opposed to wasting lots of IP "numberspace." --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Feb 16 10:21:16 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA19425 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:21:15 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:20:00 -0500 From: Glenn Little MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <36C99AB0.6F2A0124@awod.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Amsat.org already provides callsign@amsat.oeg as a remailer. This gives a transparent address to the people that send you email and gives you the versatility to change ISPs as necessary without notifying the world of the change. 73 Glenn WB4UIV@amsat.org Eric Glover wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Thomas Sailer wrote: > > > Steve Sampson wrote: > > > > > >Which makes me wonder if we have an IPv6 address space (apart from > > > >the v4 compatibility range). > > > > > > You won't need it. > > > > If you lease addresses dynamically, then indeed we won't need it, > > but if we wanted to sensibly put the callsign into the IP address > > (eg. for ident purposes), then yes, we'd need it. > > > So what about the idea of having some DNS serving names based on Call > Signs? Or something similar so people can have more than one address? > > So maybe we could have X.somewhere.org > Where X is your call sign, and if you have more than one address you could > do X.X.soumewhere.org. This way we can always find people by call sign, > and we would only need as many addresses as there are users of the system, > as opposed to wasting lots of IP "numberspace." > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: GLITTLE@AWOD.COM > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Feb 16 11:40:43 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA22033 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:40:42 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 17:38:48 -0000 (GMT) Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: Tobit Computer Co Ltd Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org From: Dirk Koopman To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: Precedence: bulk WARNING This is deeply unfashionable. This has caused flamewars. It isn't invented here (nor there). This is not a complete solution but it may provide the spur required to build a solution. An essential thing to rememeber is that callsigns are unique, also there are (compared to say the internet or telephones) comparitively few of them, a few million worldwide (decreasing slowly :-( of which less than a million would be using data. The callsigns may be mobile, but usually not. Another principle is that the underlying transport mechanism will have physical addressing mechanisms which has nothing to do with the one we humans use. Think about arp and ethernet for IP. Now think about a 'new' (cough, cough) scheme with a transport mechanism independant 'arp', which is geographically based with a mix of wire and wireless 'routes'. Consider the UK BBS network Hierarchical addressing scheme (designed by G8ASO years ago). My BBS address is GB7TLH.#35.GBR.EU The EU and the GBR are obvious, the #35 is zone 3 (east of england) county 5 (Norfolk). In any area 'routers' are almost always fixed and therefore they know where they are. They may be connected using any mechanism to their immediate peers and/or their next level gateway. Let us say that I can talk to routers called GB7NP.#35.GBR.EU and another one called GB7OX.#36.GBR.EU. They must be connected one way or another to GB7ES.#3.GBR.EU and therefore to each other. Now I can also talk to K1XX.#51.NH.US.NOAM (doesn't matter how, I just can). Now ignore the fact that I am a BBS, GB7TLH is unique (as is GB7TLH-1, GB7TLH-45, GB7TLH-fred-1 etc). By connecting to a router I become part of that router's address space. Again it doesn't matter how, use DHCP if is an IP connection (if you like) or just plain ax25 to the local radio port of the router. I can be GB7TLH.#35.GBR.EU, GB7TLH.#36.GBR.EU or GB7TLH.#51.NH.US.NOAM, one at a time or all at once. The routers should be able to move packets to the correct place without maintaining megabytes of state information. Now given that we have a intelligent caching nameserving system that uses information passed from the bottom up (i.e GB7TLH is connected or visible to GB7NP.#35.GBR.EU or wherever). It should be possible to 'connect' to 'GB7TLH' from anywhere in the world. This may mean that packets (maybe duplicates?) go to more than one place. Of course I am assuming that we are using a reasonable level 3/4 protocol that copes with duplicates and so on (it doesn't have to be IP and it probably isn't VC based). You don't have to use the #35 mechanism (although it has the wonderful property of being structured and 'subnetable') provided the number of alphabetic bits of the name at each level is small you could use that. The crucial bit though is the attachment of a unique entity (which could be multipart [think callsign and ssid or callsign, machine and port]) coupled, in realtime, to what is effectively a route. Tin helmet is now firmly on and I am well dug in. Dirk G1TLH --- Dirk-Jan Koopman, Tobit Computer Co Ltd At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Feb 16 12:04:04 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA23004 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:04:04 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:02:22 -0800 (PST) From: "Robert A. Buaas" Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] addressing discussion List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <199902161802.KAA16440@uv.wireless.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk May I respectfully ask that this discussion go somewhere else. This list is about Spread Specturm, not networking topology. Thanks All/bob --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Feb 16 13:16:18 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA25338 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 13:16:17 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:08:43 -0800 From: Jon Roland Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Coding the callsign in the IP address is not a good idea. Better would be to devote a header line to it, or use a DNS with domain names that include the callsign. An InterNIC-like domain management system is a possibility, but we should avoid any kind of central controlling authorities. We should also allow for participation by non-hams who don't have callsigns. We are discussing solutions that use bands not necessarily assigned to licensed amateurs. That suggests that the protocols we adopt be able to segregate hams from non-hams, depending on the bands used, to keep everyone legal while facilitating as much communication as possible. By the way, anybody in the Sacramento, CA, area I could network with on this? --Jon KC5MYS =================================================================== Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 02/16/99 Time: 11:08:44 http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org =================================================================== --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Feb 16 13:52:11 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA26315 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 13:52:11 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:46:33 -0800 From: Jon Roland Subject: [ss] Re: addressing discussion To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk With all due respect, I don't think a discussion of spread spectrum is complete without discussion of addressing, which inevitably involves some considerations of network topology. SS is not just about physical transceivers. It is mostly about coding and addressing. More to the point, it is coding and addressing that we can do something about while we wait for other people to come up with hardware we can afford, and for which the work we can do might provide a market that someone will want to produce hardware for. --Jon ------------------------ From: "Robert A. Buaas" > May I respectfully ask that this discussion go somewhere else. > This list is about Spread Specturm, not networking topology. ---------------End of Original Message----------------- =================================================================== Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 02/16/99 Time: 11:46:33 http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org =================================================================== --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Feb 16 15:07:33 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA28884 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:07:33 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 21:05:48 -0000 (GMT) Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: Tobit Computer Co Ltd Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org From: Dirk Koopman To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Side by Side Comparisons Cc: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: Precedence: bulk Can you give me a supplier contact address, e-mail or telephone no in the US please? On 07-Feb-99 Steve Sampson wrote: > Here's all I can give you: > > Proxim Symphony ISA Card > Cost Performance Reliability Freq Power Max # Nodes > $150 1.6 Mbps > 30 days so far 2.4 GHz 100 mW 10 per Master > > Ping time with 1500 characters averages 55 ms --- Dirk-Jan Koopman, Tobit Computer Co Ltd At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Feb 16 19:05:00 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA07555 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:04:59 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Steve Sampson" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: addressing discussion Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:01:12 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <001601be5a11$036d6f40$87228cd1@dodge.usa-site.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk It may be safe to say that a Spread Spectrum device which is designed for data will have an IP address, and a device for voice will not. Thus, the group probably doesn't care about the minor details of networking the devices. What you use for an IP address does not really concern the radio oriented listeners. Although before this discussion began, the list was basically dead for the last six months, so maybe there's really nothing to talk about. Adios, Steve -----Original Message----- From: Jon Roland To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Date: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 1:51 PM Subject: [ss] Re: addressing discussion >With all due respect, I don't think a discussion of spread spectrum is >complete without discussion of addressing, which inevitably involves some >considerations of network topology. SS is not just about physical >transceivers. It is mostly about coding and addressing. More to the point, it >is coding and addressing that we can do something about while we wait for >other people to come up with hardware we can afford, and for which the work we >can do might provide a market that someone will want to produce hardware for. > >--Jon > >------------------------ > From: "Robert A. Buaas" > >> May I respectfully ask that this discussion go somewhere else. >> This list is about Spread Specturm, not networking topology. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Feb 16 19:19:09 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA08055 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:19:09 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 17:11:24 -0800 From: Jon Roland Subject: [ss] Re: addressing discussion To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk The reactivation of the list apparently began with my posting of my WIPNet proposal, which was about digital communications. I would submit that SS strongly favors digital, except for trivial, 2-way communications. The need to exchange compatible frequency sequence codes to permit n-way communications introduces a digital element, even if the signal is analog voice, and by the nature of SS it makes more sense to be purely digital even if the message content is audio. Whether we want to send voice or data, we need to solve the same underlying digital protocol problems. --Jon KC5MYS ------------------------ From: Steve Sampson > It may be safe to say that a Spread Spectrum device which is > designed for data will have an IP address, and a device for voice > will not. ---------------End of Original Message----------------- =================================================================== Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 02/16/99 Time: 17:11:25 http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org =================================================================== --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 17 06:50:17 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA11675 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 06:50:16 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:46:56 +0200 From: Jivodar Kuzmanov MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: [SS:116] UNSUBSCRIBE X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <002501bdf624$afa93740$467686cc@dleath> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <36CABA40.5F2E4E56@triada.bg> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I want to unsubscribe. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 17 07:03:40 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA12057 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 07:03:39 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Steve Sampson" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Cc: Subject: [ss] Re: [SS:116] UNSUBSCRIBE Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 07:01:10 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <002001be5a75$9784f860$87228cd1@dodge.usa-site.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Read the little letters down at the bottom of this message. It's attached to every message. Move your mouse over those little letters, and then click with the mouse. This will bring up your mailer in which you then press the send button. I can send you a picture if you're interested? Steve -----Original Message----- From: Jivodar Kuzmanov To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 6:49 AM Subject: [ss] Re: [SS:116] UNSUBSCRIBE >I want to unsubscribe. > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 17 09:20:44 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA16268 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:20:43 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 07:41:24 -0700 (MST) From: Bob Lorenzini To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: addressing discussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Jon Roland wrote: > With all due respect, I don't think a discussion of spread spectrum is > complete without discussion of addressing, which inevitably involves some > considerations of network topology. SS is not just about physical > transceivers. This is not the appropriate list for endless speculation on a only somewhat related inflamatory issue. Please take it elsewhere. What say moderator? Bob - wd6dod --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 17 12:44:29 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA22564 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:44:29 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:34:45 -0800 From: Jon Roland Subject: [ss] Re: addressing discussion To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Excuse me, but what else is there to discuss except perhaps product features, prices, and performance specs of transceivers? That is fine and welcome, but only goes so far. SS transceivers are beyond the capability of amateurs to manufacture. All we can do is develop software and protocols to make use of them. Somebody needs to do that, and it appears it will be left to the amateur community to do it, and to test the alternatives. What, pray tell, is "inflammatory" about a joint effort at software and protocol development and standards-setting, so we can make use of the transceivers? What is speculative is discussion about pricing. Software and protocols is something within our control. --Jon ------------------------ From: Bob Lorenzini > On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Jon Roland wrote: > > > With all due respect, I don't think a discussion of spread spectrum is > > complete without discussion of addressing, which inevitably involves some > > considerations of network topology. SS is not just about physical > > transceivers. > > This is not the appropriate list for endless speculation on a only > somewhat related inflamatory issue. Please take it elsewhere. What say > moderator? ---------------End of Original Message----------------- =================================================================== Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 02/17/99 Time: 10:34:45 http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org =================================================================== --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 17 13:03:03 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA23329 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:03:03 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:59:26 -0600 From: Steve Bragg Organization: C2 Technologies, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: addressing discussion References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <36CB118E.F8188D69@c2-tech.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Jon Roland wrote: > SS transceivers are beyond the capability of amateurs to manufacture. Whoa! Nosirreee, bob! I have built an entire DS transmitter using nothing but a PIC microprocessor and a couple of transistors. I've prototyped FH transceivers using PICs, too. Out of scope for amateurs? May it never be! Have you forgotten, sir, that amateur radio operators CONCEIEVED and PIONEERED spread-spectrum radio! Many involved in its development were working for their goverment-contractor employers, granted, but they were ham operators nontheless. The pioneering article, "Poisson, Shannon and the Radio Amateur" appeared not in some thick-bearded engineering journal, but in our own QST! What about the TAPR efforts to put usable SS hardware out there? Well, OK, so commercial hardware is a bit more polished... But that doesn't mean amateurs can't do it. I thought my spread-spectrum experiments were of a rudimentary nature compared to what's being done by others. If there's nothing else to talk about, though, maybe we should go through some of the spread-spectrum hardware some of us have built. Boy, am I gonna get flamed. Ah well. Something to talk about ;-) Steve KA9MVA -- Steve Bragg KA9MVA Project Engineer C2 Technologies, Inc. 100 Reunion Center, on Main Mall 9 East 4th Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 ICQ:29816109 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 17 13:16:33 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA23849 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:16:33 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Hare, Ed, W1RFI" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: addressing discussion Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:11:50 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <8060D04206ABD2118C6800805FC743CC18C1DF@mail.arrl.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Steve KA9MVA writes: > Boy, am I gonna get flamed. Ah well. Something to talk about ;-) Not at all, Steve. It sounds like you have done some wonderful stuff! > > SS transceivers are beyond the capability of amateurs to manufacture. > Whoa! Nosirreee, bob! I have built an entire DS transmitter using > nothing but a PIC microprocessor and a couple of transistors. I've > prototyped FH transceivers using PICs, too. Whoa, indeed! Good job. Pardon my ignorance, but have these been published anywhere? I can think of lots of places, including naturally some ARRL pubs, where that info would be rabidly ready and used. > I thought my spread-spectrum experiments were of a rudimentary nature > compared to what's being done by others. If there's nothing else to > talk about, though, maybe we should go through some of the > spread-spectrum hardware some of us have built. Yes, please! Let's get these ideas out on the table, into the STAs and available. I am just now starting to play with some Part 15 SS radios, but these are NOT optimized for SS, but optimized to meet the process gain requirements of Part 15 so the manufacturers can run 1 W instead of much lower power. They are NOT representative of what can be done with SS. They are also not duplicatable, not really programmable and do not represent the state of the art in SS, or the state of art that I believe that Amateur Radio is capable of. You have just confirmed what I have always suspected -- there are experimenters doing good things with SS, but not reporting the results. If we are to make forward progress, wrt hardware, implementation, standardization, policy and regulatory issues, we can use all the information we can get. Me, I am just now learning more about this neat SS stuff, just like many here. I would LOVE to see some simple, duplicatable designs from innovative hams. 73 from ARRL HQ, Ed Hare, W1RFI ARRL Lab 225 Main St Newington, CT 06111 860-594-0318 w1rfi@arrl.org Visit the ARRL Website at http://www.arrl.org/. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 17 13:25:31 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA24162 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:25:31 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Hunter, Bob" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: addressing discussion Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:22:59 -0600 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <2E785084EBC0D111999900608C14A509012D4A1F@ExchangeMN2.ATK.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I would like to echo Ed - I would like to see Steve's design published! Bob aa0fg Robert S. Hunter PE Alliant Techsystems Inc. Phone 612.931.7619 FAX 612.931.6512 > ---------- > From: Hare, Ed, W1RFI[SMTP:ehare@arrl.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 1:11 PM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: addressing discussion > > Steve KA9MVA writes: > > > Boy, am I gonna get flamed. Ah well. Something to talk about ;-) > > Not at all, Steve. It sounds like you have done some wonderful stuff! > > > > SS transceivers are beyond the capability of amateurs to > manufacture. > > > Whoa! Nosirreee, bob! I have built an entire DS transmitter using > > nothing but a PIC microprocessor and a couple of transistors. I've > > prototyped FH transceivers using PICs, too. > > Whoa, indeed! Good job. Pardon my ignorance, but have these been > published > anywhere? I can think of lots of places, including naturally some ARRL > pubs, where that info would be rabidly ready and used. > > > I thought my spread-spectrum experiments were of a rudimentary nature > > compared to what's being done by others. If there's nothing else to > > talk about, though, maybe we should go through some of the > > spread-spectrum hardware some of us have built. > > Yes, please! Let's get these ideas out on the table, into the STAs and > available. I am just now starting to play with some Part 15 SS radios, > but > these are NOT optimized for SS, but optimized to meet the process gain > requirements of Part 15 so the manufacturers can run 1 W instead of much > lower power. They are NOT representative of what can be done with SS. > They > are also not duplicatable, not really programmable and do not represent > the > state of the art in SS, or the state of art that I believe that Amateur > Radio is capable of. > > You have just confirmed what I have always suspected -- there are > experimenters doing good things with SS, but not reporting the results. > If > we are to make forward progress, wrt hardware, implementation, > standardization, policy and regulatory issues, we can use all the > information we can get. Me, I am just now learning more about this neat > SS > stuff, just like many here. I would LOVE to see some simple, duplicatable > designs from innovative hams. > > 73 from ARRL HQ, > Ed Hare, W1RFI > ARRL Lab > 225 Main St > Newington, CT 06111 > 860-594-0318 > w1rfi@arrl.org > > Visit the ARRL Website at http://www.arrl.org/. > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: BOB_HUNTER@ATK.COM > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 17 13:26:27 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA24203 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:26:26 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 11:15:31 -0800 From: Jon Roland Subject: [ss] Re: addressing discussion To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk In response to the excellent message from Steve Bragg KA9MVA, let us discuss whether we could build SS transceivers of commercial quality for less than $200, and how we might do it. But let us not neglect the software and protocol issues. To me mere transception between two hard-coded transceivers is not of much interest. I can buy and strip out the transceiver components from portable telephones that can do that. I want to be able to address a transmission to any or several of the transceivers within range, to be able to detect who is within range to address a message to, and to be able to control whether anyone else can detect me to send a message to me. And, yes, I want digital communications. Voice over digital, yes, but digital underneath. --Jon KC5MYS =================================================================== Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 02/17/99 Time: 11:15:31 http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org =================================================================== --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 17 13:58:20 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA25288 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:58:20 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: From: "Hwang, Wen-Ruey" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: addressing discussion Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:56:23 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <8EEF5657FE89D111A5D50000F81F9C8C0930CA@rhnt02.res.timken.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I am glad to hear Steve's idea to share his experience in DSSS and FHSS using a PIC microcontroller. Since I am new in this group and I am working on a project dealing with different kinds of sensors signal by the SS wireless, I hope this group can give me some guidance for speeding up my project. I finished the front part to deal with the sensors signal such as temperature, strain gauge, and accelerometer using M68hc11 or PIC. Now I am looking for someone's help to send my sensor data to the Center station using SS wireless. If my system requires multi-points to point and around 200 ft in the industrial environment, can I make it by myself? How about using Harris chip sets or someone else? Any information and experiences are very welcome. Wen-Ruey Hwang Principal Research Engineer NDE & Sensor Technology The Timken Company Mail Code: RES-09 1835 Dueber Avenue, S.W. P.O. Box 6930 Canton, Ohio 44706 Telephone: (330)471-2707 Facsimile: (330)471-2282 > -----Original Message----- > From: Hunter, Bob [SMTP:Bob_Hunter@ATK.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 2:23 PM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: addressing discussion > > I would like to echo Ed - I would like to see Steve's design published! > > Bob aa0fg > > Robert S. Hunter PE > Alliant Techsystems Inc. > Phone 612.931.7619 > FAX 612.931.6512 > > > ---------- > > From: Hare, Ed, W1RFI[SMTP:ehare@arrl.org] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 1:11 PM > > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > > Subject: [ss] Re: addressing discussion > > > > Steve KA9MVA writes: > > > > > Boy, am I gonna get flamed. Ah well. Something to talk about ;-) > > > > Not at all, Steve. It sounds like you have done some wonderful stuff! > > > > > > SS transceivers are beyond the capability of amateurs to > > manufacture. > > > > > Whoa! Nosirreee, bob! I have built an entire DS transmitter using > > > nothing but a PIC microprocessor and a couple of transistors. I've > > > prototyped FH transceivers using PICs, too. > > > > Whoa, indeed! Good job. Pardon my ignorance, but have these been > > published > > anywhere? I can think of lots of places, including naturally some ARRL > > pubs, where that info would be rabidly ready and used. > > > > > I thought my spread-spectrum experiments were of a rudimentary nature > > > compared to what's being done by others. If there's nothing else to > > > talk about, though, maybe we should go through some of the > > > spread-spectrum hardware some of us have built. > > > > Yes, please! Let's get these ideas out on the table, into the STAs and > > available. I am just now starting to play with some Part 15 SS radios, > > but > > these are NOT optimized for SS, but optimized to meet the process gain > > requirements of Part 15 so the manufacturers can run 1 W instead of much > > lower power. They are NOT representative of what can be done with SS. > > They > > are also not duplicatable, not really programmable and do not represent > > the > > state of the art in SS, or the state of art that I believe that Amateur > > Radio is capable of. > > > > You have just confirmed what I have always suspected -- there are > > experimenters doing good things with SS, but not reporting the results. > > If > > we are to make forward progress, wrt hardware, implementation, > > standardization, policy and regulatory issues, we can use all the > > information we can get. Me, I am just now learning more about this neat > > SS > > stuff, just like many here. I would LOVE to see some simple, > duplicatable > > designs from innovative hams. > > > > 73 from ARRL HQ, > > Ed Hare, W1RFI > > ARRL Lab > > 225 Main St > > Newington, CT 06111 > > 860-594-0318 > > w1rfi@arrl.org > > > > Visit the ARRL Website at http://www.arrl.org/. > > > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: BOB_HUNTER@ATK.COM > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: HWANGW@TIMKEN.COM > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 17 14:21:32 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA26322 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:21:31 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Robert_Manzanares@racalcomm.com To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: addressing discussion Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 15:18:31 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Steve Bragg [SMTP:steveb@skymaster.c2-tech.com] If there's nothing else to talk about, though, maybe we should go through some of the spread-spectrum hardware some of us have built. Saaaaaaaaaaaaaay, that might not be a bad idea. It just might be the spark some of us need to experiment :o) Other than ARRL book, I don't have any other reference for practical knowledge. I've been thinking about trying some of the DS stuff, but I can't find my "round tuit." So, who's built what? Parts lists, schematics, and photo's if possible would be great. Robert Manzanares --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 17 16:52:38 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA03565 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:52:38 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Steve Sampson" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Cc: Subject: [ss] Re: Linux Symphony Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:49:10 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <003301be5ac7$bc03a5e0$87228cd1@dodge.usa-site.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hello Jeff, Yep, yer right, I finally got the sucker going. I had several emails with Dave, and we tried everything. I finally downloaded new drivers and removed and installed them again. The feature that seemed to be the culprit was that Maestro has a Network Profiles under Configure. I think I had this in "original" rather than "symphony." But another thing I expected was to see the Linux box appear in the Maestro window. It does not, so you know you are working when you can ping the other side. This email is from the Win98 box thru the Linux sendmail, so woo-hoo, It's working. Ronen Pinchook (4Z4ZQ) has also got his working fine, and reports pretty much the same. The spec sheet on the Symphony ISA cards is kind of weak and the booklet lists the power as 100 mW as an aside in the back of the book. I thought the RangeLAN2 had that power and suspected that it was a clip-art word from that product :-) Anyway, it is not a fast hopper, so I suspect it would lock up pretty good at max range for that power. So far I haven't gone much beyond the walls of my home. My problem is, that line-of-sight is mostly a dream, the highest elevation in OKC is the city dump, but beyond that, it's pretty flat :-) 73, Steve, N5OWK Oklahoma City -----Original Message----- From: Jeff King To: ssampson@usa-site.net Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 1:48 PM Subject: re: Linux Symphony [edited] I had a question. You indicated on your posting of 2/6/99 that you had not gotten WIN98 and Linux to work together. [snip] BTW, the folks at Proxim have told me they have gotten 1000feet out of the Symphony with clear line of sight, although they do not publish that. Have you had any luck getting greater ranges then what they advertise? Thanks -Jeff King wb8wka --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 17 17:20:11 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA04515 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:20:11 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: From: Mike@Dent.Org Reply-to: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Linux Symphony In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:49:10 CST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:15:44 +0000 Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <199902172315.XAA03430@mary.g6phf.ampr.org> Precedence: bulk > Hello Jeff, > > Yep, yer right, I finally got the sucker going. I had > several emails with Dave, and we tried everything. I > finally downloaded new drivers and removed and > installed them again. > [stuff deleted] Hi folks, can somebody confirm the cost of the syphony ISA cards in the US please? We where told by the UK distributors that we could buy these cards here for 350 pounds UK, I guess thats about $500US! Thanks Mike > > 73, > > Steve, N5OWK > Oklahoma City > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff King > To: ssampson@usa-site.net > Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 1:48 PM > Subject: re: Linux Symphony > > > [edited] > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: MIKE@LURPAC.LANCS.AC.UK > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org -- "I remember when NOS was NET and all you got was "Welcome to TTY-link.." " Mike Dent. G6PHF. Morecambe, Lancs. UK. | Mike@Dent.Org AMPRnet=g6phf@gb7mbb.ampr.org | http://www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/dentm/ PGP Fingerprint=44 F5 22 C4 CB A2 3F 9F 73 9C 02 9F 0B 16 55 72 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 17 17:24:42 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA04669 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:24:41 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Bret Berger" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Linux Symphony Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:23:12 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <001701be5acc$7eef6900$3dd182cc@henry> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk They can be purchased on-line (just in the US?) http://www.proxim.com/symphony/products/ shows $149 for the ISA card. -bret -----Original Message----- From: Mike@Dent.Org To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 4:19 PM Subject: [ss] Re: Linux Symphony >> Hello Jeff, >> >> Yep, yer right, I finally got the sucker going. I had >> several emails with Dave, and we tried everything. I >> finally downloaded new drivers and removed and >> installed them again. >> >[stuff deleted] > >Hi folks, can somebody confirm the cost of the syphony ISA cards in the US >please? >We where told by the UK distributors that we could buy these cards here for >350 pounds UK, I guess thats about $500US! > >Thanks >Mike > >> >> 73, >> >> Steve, N5OWK >> Oklahoma City >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeff King >> To: ssampson@usa-site.net >> Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 1:48 PM >> Subject: re: Linux Symphony >> >> >> [edited] > >> >> >> --- >> You are currently subscribed to ss as: MIKE@LURPAC.LANCS.AC.UK >> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > >-- >"I remember when NOS was NET and all you got was "Welcome to TTY-link.." " > Mike Dent. G6PHF. Morecambe, Lancs. UK. | Mike@Dent.Org > AMPRnet=g6phf@gb7mbb.ampr.org | http://www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/dentm/ > PGP Fingerprint=44 F5 22 C4 CB A2 3F 9F 73 9C 02 9F 0B 16 55 72 > > > > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: BRET@INFOWEST.COM >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 17 17:57:30 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA05728 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:57:30 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: From: Mike@Dent.Org Reply-to: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Linux Symphony In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:23:12 MST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:55:08 +0000 Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <199902172355.XAA03651@mary.g6phf.ampr.org> Precedence: bulk > They can be purchased on-line (just in the US?) > > http://www.proxim.com/symphony/products/ > > shows $149 for the ISA card. Cor, thats ridiculous! Thats approx 100UKP and the UK sellers want 350UKP for one in the UK! Thats typical of the huge profit margins UK companys expect when selling mainly US goods over here. Mike > > -bret > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike@Dent.Org > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 4:19 PM > Subject: [ss] Re: Linux Symphony > > > >> Hello Jeff, > >> > >> Yep, yer right, I finally got the sucker going. I had > >> several emails with Dave, and we tried everything. I > >> finally downloaded new drivers and removed and > >> installed them again. > >> > >[stuff deleted] > > > >Hi folks, can somebody confirm the cost of the syphony ISA cards in the US > >please? > >We where told by the UK distributors that we could buy these cards here for > >350 pounds UK, I guess thats about $500US! > > > >Thanks > >Mike > > > >> > >> 73, > >> > >> Steve, N5OWK > >> Oklahoma City > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jeff King > >> To: ssampson@usa-site.net > >> Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 1:48 PM > >> Subject: re: Linux Symphony > >> > >> > >> [edited] > > > >> > >> > >> --- > >> You are currently subscribed to ss as: MIKE@LURPAC.LANCS.AC.UK > >> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > >-- > >"I remember when NOS was NET and all you got was "Welcome to TTY-link.." " > > Mike Dent. G6PHF. Morecambe, Lancs. UK. | Mike@Dent.Org > > AMPRnet=g6phf@gb7mbb.ampr.org | http://www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/dentm/ > > PGP Fingerprint=44 F5 22 C4 CB A2 3F 9F 73 9C 02 9F 0B 16 55 72 > > > > > > > > > > > >--- > >You are currently subscribed to ss as: BRET@INFOWEST.COM > >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: MIKE@LURPAC.LANCS.AC.UK > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org -- "I remember when NOS was NET and all you got was "Welcome to TTY-link.." " Mike Dent. G6PHF. Morecambe, Lancs. UK. | Mike@Dent.Org AMPRnet=g6phf@gb7mbb.ampr.org | http://www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/dentm/ PGP Fingerprint=44 F5 22 C4 CB A2 3F 9F 73 9C 02 9F 0B 16 55 72 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 17 23:22:08 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA15521 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:22:08 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:20:20 +1100 From: dwayne Organization: Nexus-Limbo X-Accept-Language: en,ja,zh,zh-TW,zh-CN,hr,en-GB,fi,de,el,is,no,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: addressing discussion References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <36CBA314.3F005815@pobox.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Jon Roland wrote: > The reactivation of the list apparently began with my posting of my WIPNet > proposal, which was about digital communications. Well, there was a bit of discussion before that, but this has provoked a lot of people to speak up. I suspect this was mainly due to your claim of $200 transmission devices, and not the inherent attractiveness of your plan (I don't care, personally, I live in Australia). Dwayne -- mailto:ddraig@pobox.com http://i.am/dwayne ....return....to....the....source.... --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 17 23:25:52 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA15612 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:25:52 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:24:04 +1100 From: dwayne Organization: Nexus-Limbo X-Accept-Language: en,ja,zh,zh-TW,zh-CN,hr,en-GB,fi,de,el,is,no,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: addressing discussion References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <36CBA3F4.7E23D085@pobox.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Steve Bragg wrote: > Jon Roland wrote: > > > SS transceivers are beyond the capability of amateurs to manufacture. > > Whoa! Nosirreee, bob! I have built an entire DS transmitter using > nothing but a PIC microprocessor and a couple of transistors. I've > prototyped FH transceivers using PICs, too. Oh? Interested in sharing the plans? I badly need advice, due mainly to my total lack of knowledge in this area :-) > I thought my spread-spectrum experiments were of a rudimentary nature > compared to what's being done by others. If there's nothing else to > talk about, though, maybe we should go through some of the > spread-spectrum hardware some of us have built. Well, yes, please, I'd rather talk about that than just about anything else, and it's the reason I subscribed to this list: to find out how to build my own ss system so I can set up a working mesh network across Melbourne with my friends. Dwayne -- mailto:ddraig@pobox.com http://i.am/dwayne ....return....to....the....source.... --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Feb 17 23:54:21 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA17967 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:54:21 -0600 (CST) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Cc: steveb@skymaster.c2-tech.com Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:42:29 -0800 Subject: [ss] PIC chip SS & UWB Message-ID: References: X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3,5,7-9,11,13-21,23-65 From: Tim Vaughan List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <19990217.214237.12110.0.tv@juno.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hi Steve, Please could you tell more about your simple spread spectrum experiments with PIC chips ? I have been frustrated by the lack of simple projects that did not use exotic surface mount chips. PIC chips are easy to learn and fun to play with. How can an amateur find more information to try experiments with ultra wide band (UWB) digital radio. Seems like this could potentially be the simplest type of spread spectrum of all. Seems to have fantastic potential. Might even beat out standard spread spectrum. How about a PIC chip UWB transceiver ? Tim Vaughan WA6KJL ( tv@juno.com ) On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:59:26 -0600 Steve Bragg writes: >Jon Roland wrote: > >> SS transceivers are beyond the capability of amateurs to >manufacture. > >Whoa! Nosirreee, bob! I have built an entire DS transmitter using >nothing but a PIC microprocessor and a couple of transistors. I've >prototyped FH transceivers using PICs, too. > >Out of scope for amateurs? May it never be! Have you forgotten, sir, >that amateur radio operators CONCEIEVED and PIONEERED spread-spectrum >radio! Many involved in its development were working for their >goverment-contractor employers, granted, but they were ham operators >nontheless. The pioneering article, "Poisson, Shannon and the Radio >Amateur" appeared not in some thick-bearded engineering journal, but >in >our own QST! > >What about the TAPR efforts to put usable SS hardware out there? >Well, >OK, so commercial hardware is a bit more polished... But that doesn't >mean amateurs can't do it. > >I thought my spread-spectrum experiments were of a rudimentary nature >compared to what's being done by others. If there's nothing else to >talk about, though, maybe we should go through some of the >spread-spectrum hardware some of us have built. > >Boy, am I gonna get flamed. Ah well. Something to talk about ;-) > >Steve KA9MVA > >-- >Steve Bragg KA9MVA >Project Engineer >C2 Technologies, Inc. >100 Reunion Center, on Main Mall >9 East 4th >Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 >ICQ:29816109 > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Feb 18 00:04:32 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA24183 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:04:31 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: Message-Id: <4.1.19990217182144.00af19e0@mail.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 18:23:51 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Brett Glass Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing Cc: cornwaab@ednet.ns.ca In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.1.19990217182144.00af19e0@mail.lariat.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Fixing addresses is a bad idea. The ideal solution is probably a new three-letter top level domain, plus dynamic DNS. How about establishing a TLD consisting of names such as CALLSIGN.ham? --Brett --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Feb 18 04:56:41 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA09394 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 04:56:41 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Plamen" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Linux Symphony Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:52:36 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <007101be5b70$6afbbc60$abd1d8d4@plamen.nn.lan> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk >> http://www.proxim.com/symphony/products/ >> >> shows $149 for the ISA card. www.shopper.com shows lowest price at about $120 and yes, some merchants will send it over to Europe. The problem is you must buy american style cables and connectors because Symphony cards come only in american version (-5 suffix). Plamen. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Feb 18 05:28:40 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA10091 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:28:40 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:27:08 -0000 (GMT) Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: Tobit Computer Co Ltd Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org From: Dirk Koopman To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Linux Symphony List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: Precedence: bulk On 17-Feb-99 Steve Sampson wrote: > The spec sheet on the Symphony ISA cards is kind of weak > and the booklet lists the power as 100 mW as an aside in > the back of the book. I thought the RangeLAN2 had that > power and suspected that it was a clip-art word from that > product :-) Anyway, it is not a fast hopper, so I suspect it > would lock up pretty good at max range for that power. > So far I haven't gone much beyond the walls of my home. Why would a 'slow' hopper 'lock up' at max range? Is this something to do with hopping as such or merely retrying out because of low BER? --- Dirk-Jan Koopman, Tobit Computer Co Ltd At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Feb 18 06:43:17 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA11662 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 06:43:16 -0600 (CST) From: Steve Sampson Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: Linux Symphony To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 06:41:55 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "Dirk Koopman" at Feb 18, 99 11:27:08 am Content-Type: text List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <199902181241.GAA05976@access.usa-site.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > Why would a 'slow' hopper 'lock up' at max range? Is this something to do > with hopping as such or merely retrying out because of low BER? Well, in my simple mind, a fast hopper (down in the grass level of noise) would miss more synchronization steps and quickly fall out of sync. Steve --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Feb 18 08:26:55 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA14349 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:26:55 -0600 (CST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:20:37 -0600 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Greg Jones, WD5IVD" Subject: [ss] Re: PIC chip SS & UWB List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Just in case the group hasn't heard yet, TAPR is now hosting a PIC SIG for the discussion of PIC related projects and development. http://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?site=tapr&enter=picsig Cheers - Greg >Hi Steve, > >Please could you tell more about your simple spread spectrum experiments >with PIC >chips ? I have been frustrated by the lack of simple projects that did >not use >exotic surface mount chips. PIC chips are easy to learn and fun to play >with. > ----- Greg Jones, WD5IVD Austin, Texas wd5ivd@tapr.org http://www.tapr.org/~wd5ivd --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Feb 18 16:55:38 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA03502 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:55:38 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:47:21 -0600 From: Steve Bragg Organization: C2 Technologies, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Whacky SS Experiments References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <36CC4419.3E0BF46@c2-tech.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Robert_Manzanares@racalcomm.com wrote: > If there's nothing else to talk about, though, maybe we should go > through some of the spread-spectrum hardware some of us have built. > > Saaaaaaaaaaaaaay, that might not be a bad idea. It just might be > the spark some of us need to experiment :o) Other than ARRL book, I don't > have any other reference for practical knowledge. I've been thinking about > trying some of the DS stuff, but I can't find my "round tuit." > > So, who's built what? Parts lists, schematics, and photo's if > possible would be great. > Well, I've just been deluged with replies to my earlier message, asking for me to publish/post stuff about my spread experiments with the PIC. I'm right now working on putting them on the Web, including the PIC source code. Now, remember, guys, this isn't exactly scholarly research. This is just a whacky experiment that I cooked up. I wanted to see if I could do 1 megachip-per-sec, burst-mode, DS spread in a 4 MHz PIC. I did it, then set it aside and started working on other things. So, this is going to be a little rough around the edges...probably not up the the awesome standards of those who are working the spread STA's. I have to draw some schematics, and format/comment the source code. I should have it up by Friday. It's be linked from http://www.c2-tech.com/~steveb/ka9mva I'd like to encourage others to put their "whacky SS experiments" on the Web, too. Even if these aren't fully-cleaned-up, commercial-quality units, it's important for others to see your results. 73, Steve KA9MVA -- Steve Bragg KA9MVA Project Engineer C2 Technologies, Inc. 100 Reunion Center, on Main Mall 9 East 4th Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 ICQ:29816109 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Feb 18 17:01:19 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA03701 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:01:18 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Mitchell, Ed" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:09:02 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk This is an excellent idea. > -----Original Message----- > From: Brett Glass [SMTP:brett@lariat.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 5:24 PM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Cc: cornwaab@ednet.ns.ca > Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing > > Fixing addresses is a bad idea. The ideal solution is > probably a new three-letter top level domain, plus > dynamic DNS. How about establishing a TLD consisting > of names such as CALLSIGN.ham? > > --Brett > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: ED.MITCHELL@BOEING.COM > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Feb 18 17:18:18 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA04478 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:18:18 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:55:27 -0600 From: Steve Bragg Organization: C2 Technologies, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] PIC Spread Transmitter Page Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <36CC7E3F.2D008C12@c2-tech.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk SS'ers, Well, here it is, such that it is. The PIC DS spread spectrum transmitter. http://www.c2-tech.com/~steveb/ka9mva/spread.htm Have fun. 73, Steve KA9MVA -- Steve Bragg KA9MVA Project Engineer C2 Technologies, Inc. 100 Reunion Center, on Main Mall 9 East 4th Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 ICQ:29816109 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Feb 18 17:32:45 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA05029 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:32:45 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: From: "Cureton David (NTC/MPD)" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 01:02:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <199902182331.BAA20056@ns10.nokia.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk How would dynamic DNS affect a group of nodes that become isolated from any DNS server due to one particular link going down. Could they still comunicate between themselves? - David ---------- From: Mitchell, Ed To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing Date: Thursday, 18 February, 1999 6:09PM This is an excellent idea. > -----Original Message----- > From: Brett Glass [SMTP:brett@lariat.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 5:24 PM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Cc: cornwaab@ednet.ns.ca > Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing > > Fixing addresses is a bad idea. The ideal solution is > probably a new three-letter top level domain, plus > dynamic DNS. How about establishing a TLD consisting > of names such as CALLSIGN.ham? > > --Brett > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: ED.MITCHELL@BOEING.COM > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: CURETON@TRSMPD01ME.NTC.NOKIA.COM To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Feb 19 01:22:13 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA26812 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 01:22:13 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: Message-Id: <4.1.19990218193059.04027560@mail.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:34:48 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Brett Glass Subject: [ss] Re: Standardized Addressing In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.1.19990218193059.04027560@mail.lariat.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk At 01:02 AM 2/19/99 +0200, Cureton David (NTC/MPD) wrote: >How would dynamic DNS affect a group of nodes that become isolated from any >DNS server due to one particular link going down. Could they still >comunicate between themselves? Even wired nodes lose DNS if their connection to the domain name server is cut off. There should be a domain name server, with cache, within the cluster -- at a node that doesn't roam. It's easy and essentially free. --Brett "When you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. But lawyers have other strategies, including buying a stronger whip, changing riders ... declaring that the horse is better, faster and cheaper dead, and, finally, harnessing several dead horses together for increased speed." Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, quoted in The Wall Street Journal --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Feb 19 05:27:03 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA12628 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 05:27:02 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:24:26 -0800 From: John Stannard - KL7JL MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] ICOM America, Inc. - PC-card Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------CF1FE4BF5CE4521C76EA11B6" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <36CD3BDA.C94972AF@alaska.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------CF1FE4BF5CE4521C76EA11B6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This might interest some folk...didn't see a price. 73, John http://www.icomamerica.com/frontiers/ --------------CF1FE4BF5CE4521C76EA11B6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Base: "http://www.icomamerica.com/frontiers/" ICOM America, Inc.

NEW FRONTIERS

UX-136

Wireless LAN Card

Now Available. Contact Chris Lougee at 425-454-8155 for further information.

Clean up that mess of cables running around the office! The UX-136 is a transceiver that allows PCs to network information via wireless communication.

The UX-136 plugs right in to the standard PCMCIA port found on most laptops. Designed for use with Microsoft® Windows® 95. No license required. No hassles required. Everything is included for plug and play operation...or plug and work, depending on whatever your needs!

SPECIFICATIONS

Note: specifications are subject to change without notice or obligation.

GENERAL
Description: 2.4 GHz spread spectrum radio module
Wireless medium: Direct sequence spread spectrum radio
Operating frequency range: 2.471 - 2.497 GHz (Japanese version)
2.400 - 2.4835 GHz (US and Canada version)
Based on: IEEE802.11
RANGE
Omni-directional range, indoors: Up to 50m
Omni-directional range, outdoors: Up to 200m
RADIO CHARACTERISTICS
Data rate per (min/max): 1 Mbps/2 Mbps
Number of channels: 11
Modulation: BPSK (1 Mpbs), QPSK (2 Mbps)
Output power: Less than 100mW
Sensitivity (@ 10 to the -5 bit error rate): -80 dBm
INTERFACE
Host interface: PC card PCMCIA
Antenna: Inverted F
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Dimensions: 130.0 (w) x 54.0 (d) x 5.0 (h) mm
Operating temperature range: 0°C to 55°C
Weight: 70 g
Approval: RCR STD-33A (for Japan)
FCC approved (for US)
Industry Canada approved
ELECTRICAL
Input voltage: 4.75v to 5.25v
Power consumption: Transmit 450 mA (type TA 25°C)
Receive 240 mA (type TA 25°C)
NETWORK SUPPORT
Device drivers available: NDIS3 release 1.5
Network operating system: Microsoft® Windows® 95 for supporting
both ADHOC & infrastructure mode


[ICOM Homepage] [Dealers] [New Radios] [Calendar] [Specials] [Get In Touch With ICOM]


©1997-1999 ICOM America, Inc. The ICOM logo is a registered trademark of ICOM, Inc. All ICOM radios significantly exceed FCC regulations limiting spurious emissions. All stated specifications are subject to change without notice or obligation. Microsoft, Windows and Windows NT are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation.

--------------CF1FE4BF5CE4521C76EA11B6 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for John Stannard - KL7JL Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf" begin: vcard fn: John Stannard - KL7JL n: ;John Stannard - KL7JL adr;dom: ;;;Anchor Point;AK;; email;internet: stannard@alaska.net x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: TRUE version: 2.1 end: vcard --------------CF1FE4BF5CE4521C76EA11B6-- --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Feb 19 06:43:56 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA14106 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 06:43:56 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 05:41:14 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Brett Glass Subject: [ss] Re: ICOM America, Inc. - PC-card In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.1.19990219054042.0405ef00@mail.lariat.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I believe that this is just yet another manufacturer who resells the Harris card. --Brett Glass "When you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. But lawyers have other strategies, including buying a stronger whip, changing riders ... declaring that the horse is better, faster and cheaper dead, and, finally, harnessing several dead horses together for increased speed." Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, quoted in The Wall Street Journal --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Feb 21 17:38:24 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA29958 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 17:38:24 -0600 (CST) From: "Bob Hansen" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: PIC Spread Transmitter Page Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 18:36:58 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <000201be5df3$12851420$5683d2cc@bigpie.stny.lrun.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Thanks for sharing your work Steve. I calculated an encoding rate of 3937 rather than 3890 bps. (1M / 254 = 3937) (1M / 257 = 3891) Did I do that right, or am I misunderstanding something? Quoted from the web page: =* Manchester encoding in software, at a rate of 3.89k bits per second = (1/254th of the chip rate). Data rate is half that. -Bob, N2GDE > Well, here it is, such that it is. The PIC DS spread spectrum > transmitter. > > http://www.c2-tech.com/~steveb/ka9mva/spread.htm > > Have fun. > > 73, > > Steve KA9MVA --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Feb 23 15:09:16 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA01262 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:09:16 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:16:51 +0100 From: Luis Yanes Organization: Escuela Superior de Ingenieros de Sevilla MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: PIC Spread Transmitter Page References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <36D2AA43.27C0@esi.us.es> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Steve Bragg wrote: > > SS'ers, > > Well, here it is, such that it is. The PIC DS spread spectrum > transmitter. > > http://www.c2-tech.com/~steveb/ka9mva/spread.htm > > Have fun. Hi Steve. I've seen your PIC implementation of the DSSS. In a fast reading of the pic code I notice you only use these 'wide places' to do 'other things'. But since the bsf and bcf instructions don't modify any status bit or anything but the register affected, really you could use any consecutive 1's or 0's, even being only two, to execute other code. An easy way to see this will be to substitute any repeated 1 or 0 in the sequence of bsf/bcf with a nop. About 62 total I counted. Isn't it? Certainly the resulting code will be a mess, with the PRBS code interlaced with the other code, but only an aesthetic issue. 73's de Luis mail: melus@esi.us.es Ampr: eb7gwl.ampr.org [44.133.41.18] AX25: (sorry shut down) http://www.esi.us.es/~melus/ --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Feb 28 14:07:29 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA21437 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:07:29 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: [208.163.165.177] From: "mohamed el sheikh" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] ask for information Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:05:57 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <19990228200557.5689.qmail@hotmail.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I would like to know if it is possible to supply me with an information on the IS-95 system standards for DS-SS CDMA technique and any additional information I can have. Thanks, ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Feb 28 14:24:07 1999 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA22099 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:24:07 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:17:04 -0800 From: Jon Roland Subject: [ss] Testimony of Jon Roland before the Oversight Hearing on Y2K Preparedness of the California Legi To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Wednesday, Feb. 24, 1999, I testified before the joint Oversight Hearing on Year 2000 Preparedness of the California Legislature on the Y2K problem. Part of my testimony was about my WIPnet proposal and argument relating it to the Y2K problem. Anyone wishing to read this testimony can find it at http://www.constitution.org/y2k/test_ca_990224.htm --Jon =================================================================== Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 02/28/99 Time: 12:17:05 http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org =================================================================== --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org