Topics

Critical Mass


"Jordan Hayes KG6UAE" <kg6uae@...>
 

My main question about these protocols is can they scale back
to to a 9600-56000 bps CDMA network?
I remember getting a LOT of work done using Telebit modems :-)

(for the children: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telebit )

/jordan KG6UAE


Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

John,

From what I've been reading on the hsmm-mesh forum, there probably isn't a significant difference between the default olsrd and the one that is a part of the hsmm-mesh firmware. My thoughts at this point would be to use the mesh as primary local transport and have the UDR56K as an interconnection backbone between areas. I am planning some experimentation with a local ham that is interested in hsmm-mesh and will keep the group informed about the potential uses.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU



Mesh Networking/Self Healing Networks

There have been several people who have talked  about putting HSMM into the UDR56K-4.  I can report that olsrd compiles on the radio's ARM processor but we have not been able to do any testing at this point. I also don't have experience with the HSMM implementation to know if there are incompatibilities with standard OLSR.  This is not a priority for initial release of the radio, however, it would be interesting to have someone in the community provide what differences there might be and possibly take up the port and support of HSMM to the radio.  I have also taken a look at B.A.T.M.A.N. My main question about these protocols is can they scale back to to a 9600-56000 bps CDMA network?  When a protocol assumes a high data rate transport, it just may be too "chatty" for a lower speed network.

Certainly some of these protocols could run on a WiFi dongle attached to the radio, or the radio could be part of the mix via Ethernet or other transport.  I think a self healing network makes a lot of sense, we just have to keep in mind there are always tradeoffs.  With the UDR56K-4 you are trading bandwidth and data rate for power and propagation advantages.  This permits a network to be built with lower density of stations.  The frequency of node beacons needs to be tempered by the speed and number of adjacent nodes -- so a mobile station can run further against a base station before it needs to switch base nodes, but conversely topology updates may be slower.   It may be necessary for inventive hams to build up a light weight protocol that can create a balance between speed and network intelligence. Time will tell, but first we need to get the radio out with stated functionality.


John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 
  







"John D. Hays" <john@...>
 

I've been terribly busy of late, but thought I would take a few moments to share some thoughts on the topics in this thread.

Critical Mass

It all depends on your application.  The UDR56K-4 is a "platform radio" that can take on many different personalities and tasks.

RMS Gateway - critical mass 1, or 2 if you want to go above 1200 or 9600 bps. It can talk to existing RMS gateways and stations over the air and provide Internet connectivity to the rest of the Winlink/RMS ecosystem.

D-STAR Voice Half-Duplex Gateway - critical mass 1.  The UDR56K-4 can support both a gateway and a RF module function in one package, attach power, antenna, and Internet.  This will connect user radios into the whole D-STAR network.

D-STAR Data Access Point - critical mass 2.  Since there isn't another DD unit that performs on 70cm and at the data rates as the UDR56K-4, at least 2 units are required for operation.

AMPRnet/Net-44 - critical mass 1.  TCP/IP over AX.25 is available at 1200/9600 bps and as high as 56 kbps.

Mesh Networking/Self Healing Networks

There have been several people who have talked  about putting HSMM into the UDR56K-4.  I can report that olsrd compiles on the radio's ARM processor but we have not been able to do any testing at this point. I also don't have experience with the HSMM implementation to know if there are incompatibilities with standard OLSR.  This is not a priority for initial release of the radio, however, it would be interesting to have someone in the community provide what differences there might be and possibly take up the port and support of HSMM to the radio.  I have also taken a look at B.A.T.M.A.N. My main question about these protocols is can they scale back to to a 9600-56000 bps CDMA network?  When a protocol assumes a high data rate transport, it just may be too "chatty" for a lower speed network.

Certainly some of these protocols could run on a WiFi dongle attached to the radio, or the radio could be part of the mix via Ethernet or other transport.  I think a self healing network makes a lot of sense, we just have to keep in mind there are always tradeoffs.  With the UDR56K-4 you are trading bandwidth and data rate for power and propagation advantages.  This permits a network to be built with lower density of stations.  The frequency of node beacons needs to be tempered by the speed and number of adjacent nodes -- so a mobile station can run further against a base station before it needs to switch base nodes, but conversely topology updates may be slower.   It may be necessary for inventive hams to build up a light weight protocol that can create a balance between speed and network intelligence. Time will tell, but first we need to get the radio out with stated functionality.


John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 
  





"John K Scoggin, Jr" <aat3bf@...>
 

I was referring to use on the amateur bands.  MARS, to the best of my knowledge, has never had access to wideband UHF channels.  We had some channels in the 406-420 MHz in the past, but I believe they were lost when DHS started screaming for more…

 

john

 

From: UniversalDigitalRadio@... [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] On Behalf Of brad_ka3yan
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 12:52 PM
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Subject: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Re: Critical Mass

 

 

Bryan,

I asked my state MARS director (Navy-MC MARS) about the use of this for our state and was told that Navy-MC MARS does not have any UHF frequencies. In other words, as an organization we cannot use this radio. It was a real bummer to hear since I think this would be a fabulous application for ECOM and statewide traffic routing.

Brad

--- In UniversalDigitalRadio@..., Bryan Hoyer <bhhoyer@...> wrote:
>
> And another milepost on the road to critical mass.
>
> Just received this from Army MARS
>
> "My Winlink users are crying for something like this! Any news on availability?"
>
> Bryan
>


"brad_ka3yan" <bradm75@...>
 

Bryan,

I asked my state MARS director (Navy-MC MARS) about the use of this for our state and was told that Navy-MC MARS does not have any UHF frequencies. In other words, as an organization we cannot use this radio. It was a real bummer to hear since I think this would be a fabulous application for ECOM and statewide traffic routing.

Brad

--- In UniversalDigitalRadio@..., Bryan Hoyer <bhhoyer@...> wrote:

And another milepost on the road to critical mass.

Just received this from Army MARS

"My Winlink users are crying for something like this! Any news on availability?"

Bryan


Bryan Hoyer <bhhoyer@...>
 

And another milepost on the road to critical mass.

Just received this from Army MARS

"My Winlink users are crying for something like this!  Any news on availability?"

Bryan


Steve <stevewa206@...>
 

You said.... "just that many Hams already have the RF power on their desks
and in their cars - they need to rest of the system."

You just hit the hammer on the nail...the problem is the desktop radio
and the mobile radio. They are not designed for high speed
data...period. They do not really do 1200 baud really well ! Hence
the new radio.

I would guess mode of the cost is in the radio and not the control
processor. It is made to connect up to your PC and you run everything
from the PC or small network.

This is why it is exciting to see a new radio.


Steve N0FPF

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:09 AM, qrv@... <qrv@...> wrote:
Steve,

I was unclear, I was not suggesting that 25w (or more) is not
necessary - just that many Hams already have the RF power on their desks
and in their cars - they need to rest of the system.

D-Star has *only* succeeded after many years of giving-away
$10's of thousand of dollars worth of gear and repeaters and probably
as much in advertising.

The adapter dongles which hit the market in recent years added
many users who otherwise might never have joined the D-Star system.
The used market has been important to multiplying adoption as well.

My observation is that the hardware answer is *and* vs *or*.

The all-in-one box for those who are willing to spend the extra
*and* an add-on box for those whose budgets and commitment are more
limited. (The latter tends to be the majority of ultimate-adopters
of new technology.)

It is always fascinating to watch a new product in the market
and it is my hope that you are successful whichever path you take.

73, David KD4E

I agree, this is a new type of box on the market and the market will
decide if it is embraced or not. One thing about the price though,
lots of people seem to spend money in that price range for dual band
radios, D-Star stuff, etc, not to mention HF gear. The only thing
that comes close is the D-Star 1.2 Ghz box at $800 +. There was a
440Mhz radio from Germany that could do the speed at $600 each, not
including the TNC. You can not compare it to a $25 used Linksys
802.11 box. It is apples and oranges when it comes to the radio
part. If you only need to go 300 feet...buy a 802.11 box. You might
be better comparing it to something like a Canopy or Alvarion
multipoint system. Personally, I think there will be a surge of sales
and we will see what happens. People have been wanting more speed
and versatility for a long long time! Steve N0FPF


--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links



"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
 

Steve,

I was unclear, I was not suggesting that 25w (or more) is not
necessary - just that many Hams already have the RF power on their desks
and in their cars - they need to rest of the system.

D-Star has *only* succeeded after many years of giving-away
$10's of thousand of dollars worth of gear and repeaters and probably
as much in advertising.

The adapter dongles which hit the market in recent years added
many users who otherwise might never have joined the D-Star system.
The used market has been important to multiplying adoption as well.

My observation is that the hardware answer is *and* vs *or*.

The all-in-one box for those who are willing to spend the extra
*and* an add-on box for those whose budgets and commitment are more limited. (The latter tends to be the majority of ultimate-adopters
of new technology.)

It is always fascinating to watch a new product in the market
and it is my hope that you are successful whichever path you take.

73, David KD4E

I agree, this is a new type of box on the market and the market will
decide if it is embraced or not. One thing about the price though,
lots of people seem to spend money in that price range for dual band
radios, D-Star stuff, etc, not to mention HF gear. The only thing
that comes close is the D-Star 1.2 Ghz box at $800 +. There was a
440Mhz radio from Germany that could do the speed at $600 each, not
including the TNC. You can not compare it to a $25 used Linksys
802.11 box. It is apples and oranges when it comes to the radio
part. If you only need to go 300 feet...buy a 802.11 box. You might
be better comparing it to something like a Canopy or Alvarion
multipoint system. Personally, I think there will be a surge of sales
and we will see what happens. People have been wanting more speed
and versatility for a long long time! Steve N0FPF
--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22


Steve <stevewa206@...>
 

I agree, this is a new type of box on the market and the market will decide if it is embraced or not. One thing about the price though, lots of people seem to spend money in that price range for dual band radios, D-Star stuff, etc, not to mention HF gear. The only thing that comes close is the D-Star 1.2 Ghz box at $800 +.  There was a 440Mhz radio from Germany that could do the speed at $600 each, not including the TNC.
 
You can not compare it to a $25 used Linksys 802.11 box. It is apples and oranges when it comes to the radio part. If you only need to go 300 feet...buy a 802.11 box. You might be better comparing it to something like a Canopy or Alvarion multipoint system.
 
Personally, I think there will be a surge of sales and we will see what happens. People have been wanting more speed and versatility for a long long time!
 
Steve N0FPF

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...> wrote:
 

As I said in the other thread, the only thing that is really proprietary about Winlink 2000 is the support for any form of Pactor; they do support Linux via the Open Source community; they just don't have the resources (meaning development staff) to do the work themselves and still maintain the Windows applications they are working on.

As far as lower cost interfaces to existing equipment goes, these things do already exist, but to my knowledge there is nothing currently available that will handle the higher speeds that the UDR56K is capable of out of the box; I know that Kantronics did have a 70 cm high speed packet radio at one time, but I don't know if that is still available brand new, and it wouldn't be able to do the newer digital voice and data modes without work as far as I know.

HSMM-MESH will work on more than just the Linksys WRT series, as far as I know; it just needs to have support for the CPU used in the specific router (code is likely available from the OpenWRT or DD-WRT code bases to do this). This will have to happen as the WRT54G routers that are supported become more difficult to find new. I know there are other routers that would be quite appropriate to use for this, even if they would need modifications that the currently supported ones don't require.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU



From: "qrv@..." <qrv@...>
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Sent: Monday, September 3, 2012 11:38 AM

Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Critical Mass

 
This has probably been asked and answered but I could not find the
thread ...

Will there be a version of this which uses existing hardware?

I find it very difficult to believe that we could get sufficient
density of users at $395. (or even $200) each.

I get that some will be willing to pay for plug-n-play - and a
repeater installation needs to be simple and small - so the all-
in-one solution makes sense in those contexts.

An add-on device that functions like a TNC between computer and
existing rig - and is in the $75. - $125. range should result in
widespread adoption.

Our systems are impossibly fragmented right now so I'd anticipate
considerable interest in a cross-system OS-platform-independent
device and app that are affordable for users.

BTW: I received the two routers ($50. for the pair including
shipping) and had them up and running on HSMM-Mesh in a very
short time -- it's really simple!

The Winlink2000 folks are pushing rally hard, as have been the
D-Link folks, as they see non-proprietary alternatives coming
at them and they know they cannot compete.

IMHO, YMMV, 73 ...

----------------------------------------------------------
I would probably use the hsmm-mesh as the primary network transport and
the UDR56K as whichever secondary system I happened to need. I'm even
contemplating pairing the UDR56K with a USRP and some open source
software as an emergency telephone system for use until normal telephone
service can be restored to an affected area.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22




Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

As I said in the other thread, the only thing that is really proprietary about Winlink 2000 is the support for any form of Pactor; they do support Linux via the Open Source community; they just don't have the resources (meaning development staff) to do the work themselves and still maintain the Windows applications they are working on.

As far as lower cost interfaces to existing equipment goes, these things do already exist, but to my knowledge there is nothing currently available that will handle the higher speeds that the UDR56K is capable of out of the box; I know that Kantronics did have a 70 cm high speed packet radio at one time, but I don't know if that is still available brand new, and it wouldn't be able to do the newer digital voice and data modes without work as far as I know.

HSMM-MESH will work on more than just the Linksys WRT series, as far as I know; it just needs to have support for the CPU used in the specific router (code is likely available from the OpenWRT or DD-WRT code bases to do this). This will have to happen as the WRT54G routers that are supported become more difficult to find new. I know there are other routers that would be quite appropriate to use for this, even if they would need modifications that the currently supported ones don't require.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU



From: "qrv@..."
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Sent: Monday, September 3, 2012 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Critical Mass

 
This has probably been asked and answered but I could not find the
thread ...

Will there be a version of this which uses existing hardware?

I find it very difficult to believe that we could get sufficient
density of users at $395. (or even $200) each.

I get that some will be willing to pay for plug-n-play - and a
repeater installation needs to be simple and small - so the all-
in-one solution makes sense in those contexts.

An add-on device that functions like a TNC between computer and
existing rig - and is in the $75. - $125. range should result in
widespread adoption.

Our systems are impossibly fragmented right now so I'd anticipate
considerable interest in a cross-system OS-platform-independent
device and app that are affordable for users.

BTW: I received the two routers ($50. for the pair including
shipping) and had them up and running on HSMM-Mesh in a very
short time -- it's really simple!

The Winlink2000 folks are pushing rally hard, as have been the
D-Link folks, as they see non-proprietary alternatives coming
at them and they know they cannot compete.

IMHO, YMMV, 73 ...

----------------------------------------------------------
I would probably use the hsmm-mesh as the primary network transport and
the UDR56K as whichever secondary system I happened to need. I'm even
contemplating pairing the UDR56K with a USRP and some open source
software as an emergency telephone system for use until normal telephone
service can be restored to an affected area.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22



"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
 

This has probably been asked and answered but I could not find the
thread ...

Will there be a version of this which uses existing hardware?

I find it very difficult to believe that we could get sufficient
density of users at $395. (or even $200) each.

I get that some will be willing to pay for plug-n-play - and a
repeater installation needs to be simple and small - so the all-
in-one solution makes sense in those contexts.

An add-on device that functions like a TNC between computer and
existing rig - and is in the $75. - $125. range should result in
widespread adoption.

Our systems are impossibly fragmented right now so I'd anticipate
considerable interest in a cross-system OS-platform-independent
device and app that are affordable for users.

BTW: I received the two routers ($50. for the pair including
shipping) and had them up and running on HSMM-Mesh in a very
short time -- it's really simple!

The Winlink2000 folks are pushing rally hard, as have been the
D-Link folks, as they see non-proprietary alternatives coming
at them and they know they cannot compete.

IMHO, YMMV, 73 ...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would probably use the hsmm-mesh as the primary network transport and the UDR56K as whichever secondary system I happened to need. I'm even contemplating pairing the UDR56K with a USRP and some open source software as an emergency telephone system for use until normal telephone service can be restored to an affected area.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22


Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

In my case, it will be the Ettus Research Universal Software Radio Peripheral version 1 with GnuRadio, OpenBTS, and Asterisk (quite probably using the AllStar Link version for other functionality).

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU


Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android



From: Steve ;
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@... ;
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Critical Mass
Sent: Mon, Sep 3, 2012 3:37:24 AM

 

Ha!  I ment MPLS...  To much wine tonight.


N0FPF


On Sunday, September 2, 2012, Steve wrote:
So are you going to be adding routing and switching protocols to the base system? 
Which USRP are you adding? It is a widly used acronym.  If you do VOIP, ROIP, maybe MSRP would be a good option too. This would not be needed at the clients but I could see it at repeater / backbone nodes.

Steve N0FPF

On Sunday, September 2, 2012, Matthew Pitts wrote:
 

Steve,

It could be done either way, though I would probably use the hsmm-mesh as the primary network transport and the UDR56K as whichever secondary system I happened to need. I'm even contemplating pairing the UDR56K with a USRP and some open source software as an emergency telephone system for use until normal telephone service can be restored to an affected area.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU


Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android



From: Steve <stevewa206@...>;
To: <UniversalDigitalRadio@...>;
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Re: Critical Mass
Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 6:25:25 PM

 

Now there is an interesting question. How would you do MESH..
 
Add a WRT with the MESH software and just use the UDR56k in layer 2? Or do it in the UDR56K natively?
 
Steve N0FPF

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:18 AM, ve7sru_225 <ve7dhm@...> wrote:
 

Regarding critical mass V.A.R.P.A is very interested in using the
UDR56K to upgrade speed / capabilities of the packet network for the
southern Vancouver Island area. A wireless mesh, using the UDR56K,
would certainly enhance Amateur Radio support of NGOs and local
authorities during times of disaster.

Adding the UDR56K to the V.A.R.P.A. nodestacks will certainly help
critical mass expansion in the Puget Sound area.

I look forward with anticipation the production release of the
UDR56K so that testing can begin.

Regards

Paul VE7DHM



--- In UniversalDigitalRadio@..., "qrv@..." wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> Point well taken.
>
> I have ordered a couple of the routers and will test them with
> 24db gain beams and perhaps with Rx/Tx amps on either end to see what
> may be the reliable distance at a reasonable cost.
>
> I agree that the routers alone, even with gain antennas, present the
> same challenge of many participants for adequate
> coverage as D-Star and APRS - with less ease of portability.
>
> There is also the challenge of extracting data to be delivered
> or forwarded via other communication modes.
>
> That said, a portable HSMM-Mesh network would be exceptionally
> valuable to a field team (EOC, DMAT, Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc)
> when a lot of data (images & text) needs to be shared among sub-teams.
>
> I'm planning to test the system mobile this Fall as I take a
> cross-country drive.
>
> David
>
> > KD4E, I have had a few people suggest this to me and say essentially
> > "why bother with buying this expensive equipment". The answer, as I
> > see it is that, at 2.4GHz you need a much higher density of
> > participants. It's great in theory but I think would be tough to pull
> > off. Of course I don't mean that it wou


Steve <stevewa206@...>
 

Ha!  I ment MPLS...  To much wine tonight.

N0FPF


On Sunday, September 2, 2012, Steve wrote:
So are you going to be adding routing and switching protocols to the base system? 
Which USRP are you adding? It is a widly used acronym.  If you do VOIP, ROIP, maybe MSRP would be a good option too. This would not be needed at the clients but I could see it at repeater / backbone nodes.

Steve N0FPF

On Sunday, September 2, 2012, Matthew Pitts wrote:
 

Steve,

It could be done either way, though I would probably use the hsmm-mesh as the primary network transport and the UDR56K as whichever secondary system I happened to need. I'm even contemplating pairing the UDR56K with a USRP and some open source software as an emergency telephone system for use until normal telephone service can be restored to an affected area.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU


Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android



From: Steve <stevewa206@...>;
To: <UniversalDigitalRadio@...>;
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Re: Critical Mass
Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 6:25:25 PM

 

Now there is an interesting question. How would you do MESH..
 
Add a WRT with the MESH software and just use the UDR56k in layer 2? Or do it in the UDR56K natively?
 
Steve N0FPF

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:18 AM, ve7sru_225 <ve7dhm@...> wrote:
 

Regarding critical mass V.A.R.P.A is very interested in using the
UDR56K to upgrade speed / capabilities of the packet network for the
southern Vancouver Island area. A wireless mesh, using the UDR56K,
would certainly enhance Amateur Radio support of NGOs and local
authorities during times of disaster.

Adding the UDR56K to the V.A.R.P.A. nodestacks will certainly help
critical mass expansion in the Puget Sound area.

I look forward with anticipation the production release of the
UDR56K so that testing can begin.

Regards

Paul VE7DHM



--- In UniversalDigitalRadio@..., "qrv@..." wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> Point well taken.
>
> I have ordered a couple of the routers and will test them with
> 24db gain beams and perhaps with Rx/Tx amps on either end to see what
> may be the reliable distance at a reasonable cost.
>
> I agree that the routers alone, even with gain antennas, present the
> same challenge of many participants for adequate
> coverage as D-Star and APRS - with less ease of portability.
>
> There is also the challenge of extracting data to be delivered
> or forwarded via other communication modes.
>
> That said, a portable HSMM-Mesh network would be exceptionally
> valuable to a field team (EOC, DMAT, Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc)
> when a lot of data (images & text) needs to be shared among sub-teams.
>
> I'm planning to test the system mobile this Fall as I take a
> cross-country drive.
>
> David
>
> > KD4E, I have had a few people suggest this to me and say essentially
> > "why bother with buying this expensive equipment". The answer, as I
> > see it is that, at 2.4GHz you need a much higher density of
> > participants. It's great in theory but I think would be tough to pull
> > off. Of course I don't mean that it wou


Steve <stevewa206@...>
 

So are you going to be adding routing and switching protocols to the base system? 
Which USRP are you adding? It is a widly used acronym.  If you do VOIP, ROIP, maybe MSRP would be a good option too. This would not be needed at the clients but I could see it at repeater / backbone nodes.

Steve N0FPF

On Sunday, September 2, 2012, Matthew Pitts wrote:
 

Steve,

It could be done either way, though I would probably use the hsmm-mesh as the primary network transport and the UDR56K as whichever secondary system I happened to need. I'm even contemplating pairing the UDR56K with a USRP and some open source software as an emergency telephone system for use until normal telephone service can be restored to an affected area.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU


Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android



From: Steve <stevewa206@...>;
To: <UniversalDigitalRadio@...>;
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Re: Critical Mass
Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 6:25:25 PM

 

Now there is an interesting question. How would you do MESH..
 
Add a WRT with the MESH software and just use the UDR56k in layer 2? Or do it in the UDR56K natively?
 
Steve N0FPF

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:18 AM, ve7sru_225 <ve7dhm@...> wrote:
 

Regarding critical mass V.A.R.P.A is very interested in using the
UDR56K to upgrade speed / capabilities of the packet network for the
southern Vancouver Island area. A wireless mesh, using the UDR56K,
would certainly enhance Amateur Radio support of NGOs and local
authorities during times of disaster.

Adding the UDR56K to the V.A.R.P.A. nodestacks will certainly help
critical mass expansion in the Puget Sound area.

I look forward with anticipation the production release of the
UDR56K so that testing can begin.

Regards

Paul VE7DHM



--- In UniversalDigitalRadio@..., "qrv@..." wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> Point well taken.
>
> I have ordered a couple of the routers and will test them with
> 24db gain beams and perhaps with Rx/Tx amps on either end to see what
> may be the reliable distance at a reasonable cost.
>
> I agree that the routers alone, even with gain antennas, present the
> same challenge of many participants for adequate
> coverage as D-Star and APRS - with less ease of portability.
>
> There is also the challenge of extracting data to be delivered
> or forwarded via other communication modes.
>
> That said, a portable HSMM-Mesh network would be exceptionally
> valuable to a field team (EOC, DMAT, Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc)
> when a lot of data (images & text) needs to be shared among sub-teams.
>
> I'm planning to test the system mobile this Fall as I take a
> cross-country drive.
>
> David
>
> > KD4E, I have had a few people suggest this to me and say essentially
> > "why bother with buying this expensive equipment". The answer, as I
> > see it is that, at 2.4GHz you need a much higher density of
> > participants. It's great in theory but I think would be tough to pull
> > off. Of course I don't mean that it wouldn't be good to have. It
> > would be another tool in the toolbox. But in my experience, it is
> > more important to have a group of people that actively train with
> > equipment and are familiar with procedures and each other than it is
> > to have lots of cheap equipment and no organization. Again, not
> > meaning to be negative. I think it would be good to have HSMM-Mesh
> > too. I just think I would rather work in a smaller dedicated group
> > that is used to working together.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
> David Colburn nevils-station.com
> I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
> Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
> Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22
>



Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

Steve,

It could be done either way, though I would probably use the hsmm-mesh as the primary network transport and the UDR56K as whichever secondary system I happened to need. I'm even contemplating pairing the UDR56K with a USRP and some open source software as an emergency telephone system for use until normal telephone service can be restored to an affected area.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU


Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android



From: Steve <stevewa206@...>;
To: ;
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Re: Critical Mass
Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 6:25:25 PM

 

Now there is an interesting question. How would you do MESH..
 
Add a WRT with the MESH software and just use the UDR56k in layer 2? Or do it in the UDR56K natively?
 
Steve N0FPF

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:18 AM, ve7sru_225 <ve7dhm@...> wrote:
 

Regarding critical mass V.A.R.P.A is very interested in using the
UDR56K to upgrade speed / capabilities of the packet network for the
southern Vancouver Island area. A wireless mesh, using the UDR56K,
would certainly enhance Amateur Radio support of NGOs and local
authorities during times of disaster.

Adding the UDR56K to the V.A.R.P.A. nodestacks will certainly help
critical mass expansion in the Puget Sound area.

I look forward with anticipation the production release of the
UDR56K so that testing can begin.

Regards

Paul VE7DHM



--- In UniversalDigitalRadio@..., "qrv@..." wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> Point well taken.
>
> I have ordered a couple of the routers and will test them with
> 24db gain beams and perhaps with Rx/Tx amps on either end to see what
> may be the reliable distance at a reasonable cost.
>
> I agree that the routers alone, even with gain antennas, present the
> same challenge of many participants for adequate
> coverage as D-Star and APRS - with less ease of portability.
>
> There is also the challenge of extracting data to be delivered
> or forwarded via other communication modes.
>
> That said, a portable HSMM-Mesh network would be exceptionally
> valuable to a field team (EOC, DMAT, Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc)
> when a lot of data (images & text) needs to be shared among sub-teams.
>
> I'm planning to test the system mobile this Fall as I take a
> cross-country drive.
>
> David
>
> > KD4E, I have had a few people suggest this to me and say essentially
> > "why bother with buying this expensive equipment". The answer, as I
> > see it is that, at 2.4GHz you need a much higher density of
> > participants. It's great in theory but I think would be tough to pull
> > off. Of course I don't mean that it wouldn't be good to have. It
> > would be another tool in the toolbox. But in my experience, it is
> > more important to have a group of people that actively train with
> > equipment and are familiar with procedures and each other than it is
> > to have lots of cheap equipment and no organization. Again, not
> > meaning to be negative. I think it would be good to have HSMM-Mesh
> > too. I just think I would rather work in a smaller dedicated group
> > that is used to working together.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
> David Colburn nevils-station.com
> I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
> Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
> Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22
>



Steve <stevewa206@...>
 

Now there is an interesting question. How would you do MESH..
 
Add a WRT with the MESH software and just use the UDR56k in layer 2? Or do it in the UDR56K natively?
 
Steve N0FPF

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:18 AM, ve7sru_225 <ve7dhm@...> wrote:
 

Regarding critical mass V.A.R.P.A is very interested in using the
UDR56K to upgrade speed / capabilities of the packet network for the
southern Vancouver Island area. A wireless mesh, using the UDR56K,
would certainly enhance Amateur Radio support of NGOs and local
authorities during times of disaster.

Adding the UDR56K to the V.A.R.P.A. nodestacks will certainly help
critical mass expansion in the Puget Sound area.

I look forward with anticipation the production release of the
UDR56K so that testing can begin.

Regards

Paul VE7DHM



--- In UniversalDigitalRadio@..., "qrv@..." wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> Point well taken.
>
> I have ordered a couple of the routers and will test them with
> 24db gain beams and perhaps with Rx/Tx amps on either end to see what
> may be the reliable distance at a reasonable cost.
>
> I agree that the routers alone, even with gain antennas, present the
> same challenge of many participants for adequate
> coverage as D-Star and APRS - with less ease of portability.
>
> There is also the challenge of extracting data to be delivered
> or forwarded via other communication modes.
>
> That said, a portable HSMM-Mesh network would be exceptionally
> valuable to a field team (EOC, DMAT, Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc)
> when a lot of data (images & text) needs to be shared among sub-teams.
>
> I'm planning to test the system mobile this Fall as I take a
> cross-country drive.
>
> David
>
> > KD4E, I have had a few people suggest this to me and say essentially
> > "why bother with buying this expensive equipment". The answer, as I
> > see it is that, at 2.4GHz you need a much higher density of
> > participants. It's great in theory but I think would be tough to pull
> > off. Of course I don't mean that it wouldn't be good to have. It
> > would be another tool in the toolbox. But in my experience, it is
> > more important to have a group of people that actively train with
> > equipment and are familiar with procedures and each other than it is
> > to have lots of cheap equipment and no organization. Again, not
> > meaning to be negative. I think it would be good to have HSMM-Mesh
> > too. I just think I would rather work in a smaller dedicated group
> > that is used to working together.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
> David Colburn nevils-station.com
> I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
> Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
> Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22
>



"ve7sru_225" <ve7dhm@...>
 

Regarding critical mass V.A.R.P.A is very interested in using the
UDR56K to upgrade speed / capabilities of the packet network for the
southern Vancouver Island area. A wireless mesh, using the UDR56K,
would certainly enhance Amateur Radio support of NGOs and local
authorities during times of disaster.

Adding the UDR56K to the V.A.R.P.A. nodestacks will certainly help
critical mass expansion in the Puget Sound area.

I look forward with anticipation the production release of the
UDR56K so that testing can begin.

Regards

Paul VE7DHM

--- In UniversalDigitalRadio@..., "qrv@..." <qrv@...> wrote:

Bob,

Point well taken.

I have ordered a couple of the routers and will test them with
24db gain beams and perhaps with Rx/Tx amps on either end to see what
may be the reliable distance at a reasonable cost.

I agree that the routers alone, even with gain antennas, present the
same challenge of many participants for adequate
coverage as D-Star and APRS - with less ease of portability.

There is also the challenge of extracting data to be delivered
or forwarded via other communication modes.

That said, a portable HSMM-Mesh network would be exceptionally
valuable to a field team (EOC, DMAT, Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc)
when a lot of data (images & text) needs to be shared among sub-teams.

I'm planning to test the system mobile this Fall as I take a
cross-country drive.

David

KD4E, I have had a few people suggest this to me and say essentially
"why bother with buying this expensive equipment". The answer, as I
see it is that, at 2.4GHz you need a much higher density of
participants. It's great in theory but I think would be tough to pull
off. Of course I don't mean that it wouldn't be good to have. It
would be another tool in the toolbox. But in my experience, it is
more important to have a group of people that actively train with
equipment and are familiar with procedures and each other than it is
to have lots of cheap equipment and no organization. Again, not
meaning to be negative. I think it would be good to have HSMM-Mesh
too. I just think I would rather work in a smaller dedicated group
that is used to working together.


--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22


"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
 

Bob,

Point well taken.

I have ordered a couple of the routers and will test them with
24db gain beams and perhaps with Rx/Tx amps on either end to see what
may be the reliable distance at a reasonable cost.

I agree that the routers alone, even with gain antennas, present the same challenge of many participants for adequate
coverage as D-Star and APRS - with less ease of portability.

There is also the challenge of extracting data to be delivered
or forwarded via other communication modes.

That said, a portable HSMM-Mesh network would be exceptionally
valuable to a field team (EOC, DMAT, Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc)
when a lot of data (images & text) needs to be shared among sub-teams.

I'm planning to test the system mobile this Fall as I take a
cross-country drive.

David

KD4E, I have had a few people suggest this to me and say essentially
"why bother with buying this expensive equipment". The answer, as I
see it is that, at 2.4GHz you need a much higher density of
participants. It's great in theory but I think would be tough to pull
off. Of course I don't mean that it wouldn't be good to have. It
would be another tool in the toolbox. But in my experience, it is
more important to have a group of people that actively train with
equipment and are familiar with procedures and each other than it is
to have lots of cheap equipment and no organization. Again, not
meaning to be negative. I think it would be good to have HSMM-Mesh
too. I just think I would rather work in a smaller dedicated group
that is used to working together.
--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22


Bob Helling <bob.helling@...>
 

Thanks Bryan for your reply.  I will reply more fully later tonight.

Gary, good luck to you.  I hope we are able to pull off a Puget Sound wide network.  I recently moved to Bothell on the Snohomish County side but I'm active still with Seattle ACS since I used to live in Seattle.  I would be happy to work with you if we can get enough links in between.

KD4E, I have had a few people suggest this to me and say essentially "why bother with buying this expensive equipment".  The answer, as I see it is that, at 2.4GHz you need a much higher density of participants.  It's great in theory but I think would be tough to pull off.  Of course I don't mean that it wouldn't be good to have.  It would be another tool in the toolbox.  But in my experience, it is more important to have a group of people that actively train with equipment and are familiar with procedures and each other than it is to have lots of cheap equipment and no organization.  Again, not meaning to be negative.  I think it would be good to have HSMM-Mesh too.  I just think I would rather work in a smaller dedicated group that is used to working together.



"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
 

Have you considered HSMM-Mesh in that mix?

I would purchase one or more units if there were others in my region
with which to communicate. ... I welcome the possibility
brought forth by the introduction of this new hardware. Is there
anyone in the South Puget Sound area that would like to collaborate
with me on this project?

Best regards,

Gary, K7EK
--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22