| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 23.09.99 04:57l 213 Lines 7892 Bytes #-9769 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_237L
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/237L
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0ABH<DB0BOX<DB0MAK<OK0PKL<OK0PPR<OK0PRG<OK0PAB<HA5OB<
HA3PG<SV1AAW<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990922/2142Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:1454 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_237
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA19516 ; Wed, 22 Sep 99 20:59:42 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00015783 ; Wed, 22 Sep 99 21:18:47 MET
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 99 21:15:41 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_237L>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/237L
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
they once did in years past.
I think it's high time we quit coddling the geek community and go back to
the serious business of advancing and developing the art of digital amateur
radio, most particularly in the US.
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:56:07 -0700
From: "Cathryn Mataga" <cathryn@junglevision.com>
Subject: Those Wide, Open Spaces
Charles Brabham wrote in message <7s5d9d$1m4h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>My idea is simple: Instead of calling them VHF/UHF networks, why not
>organize what is already being done anyway and call them HF/VHF/UHF
>networks, or "all band networks", and take control of a process that has
>been allowed to go on for years in an uncontrolled, unorganized fashion?
>
>If each large-scale network had a "HF coordinator", then multiple HF
>stations within the network's coverage area could be recruited and
organized
>so as to eliminate duplicated efforts and organize forwarding chores with
HF
>stations associated with other VHF/UHF nets.
Here, the issue seems to be, as I've been told by locals, not so much of
duplicating effort, but of knowing which messages go to HF forwarding,
and which go to the satellite gateway. That messages here in NCA
destined for the east coast, get uploaded to a pacsat. The deal
is that, I guess, the satellite is kind of slow, as it takes a day or so to
get downloaded. HF is much faster -- that is something forwarded over
HF will be there right away, but well, you know, it's HF. So, who knows
if the band is open or when it's going be. It's not a good thing for
messages to sit around on the HF gateways either, if they could be
uploaded to the satellite gateway.
So, the way for this to happen, I guess, is for all messages destined
for going outside of the area, to end up on a single BBS. And have
that machine, then attempt connects, through the network, over HF
links to the remote BBS's. Then if no HF link is possible, that message
goes to the satellite. At least that's how I'm figuring right now. That
is setting up to propagate NETROM nodes, or maybe just making
a node alias that connect to distant stations with Pactor -- or print an
error message saying that the channel is busy or something the connection
has timed out. (And I've been playing around with some code for
this using just a PK232, and even just Pactor 1 links, btw are hugely
more solid than HF packet links.) Me, maybe I'll get that
PTC II someday, though that $900 price tag just sort of gets me
every time.
Anyway, I'm pretty far along on the code for calling out with the
PK232, and I figure I'll stick that on my web page pretty soon. I
got an MFJ 1276 coming in here, so I can call myself to test on
the receiving end, and I'll do that when that box comes in.
Another way, maybe it could work is that somehow messages get sent,
like on a token ring type of deal to each of the HF gateways. Each
HF gateway runs through all it's frequencies to see if it can forward
the message -- and then if it can't, it passes it on to the next HF gateway.
Maybe everyone in the area always forwards to the closes HF gateway,
and then if that message has cycled around all the HF gateways that
have a chance, it then goes to the satellite gateway. I'm not sure. And
I'm not quite good enough of a 'forward.sys' guru to know how to
do this kind of thing. For aesthetic reasons, I kind of like the idea
of an HF hub bbs, that connects through to each HF gateway in order
a little better.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:57:36 -0500
From: "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Those Wide, Open Spaces
Charles, Cathryn:
Have you guys ever heard about . . .
[begin paste]
StarBurst Communications Corporation
150 Baker Avenue, Concord, MA 01742
(508) 287-5560 Fax: (508) 287-5561
http://www.starburst.com
[end paste]
It was/is a startup company pushing a multi-cast protocol. I don't know if
they are still in business or if they have been bought [Who, maybe cisco or
... . .]
Anyway, there whole system, protocol looked to my like it could handle
Charlie's HF multicast idea.
Maybe they would "donate" their protocol engine to amateur radio just for
the publicity.
Regards,
Peter AB4BC
Charles Brabham <n5pvl@texoma.net> wrote in message
news:7s5d9d$1m4h@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> The USA is not alone in having a good deal of wide open spaces that cannot
> practically be bridged with VHF/UHF style networking. It's a big problem
in
> most places on the planet, and nobody has bothered to seriously address
the
> problem, perhaps because they heard the LandLine Lid "It can't be done"
> mantra, and mistakenly thought that the A types knew what they were
talking
> about.
>
> This is becoming less of a problem as more and more Hams realize how lame
> the entire LandLine Lid way of looking at things is, and reject their
> anti-ham, "It can't be done" outlook. People just can't be expected to sit
> on their hands and listen to gloom 'n doom forever. - And of course many
> hams are tired of hearing how ignorant and incompetent they are from a
> clique of self-absorbed geeks who are so ignorant themselves that they
just
> can't understand basic stuff, like why hams would want to use radio to
> communicate... Duh!
>
> I've been aware of one method for effectively bridging those gaps between
> packet nets for a several years now, and recently discovered another one.
> Either idea would work, but both need to be developed. One has been around
> for years, and fell into the TAPR "black hole"; That limbo within TAPR,
> where projects the LandLine Lid types do not want developed end up at. The
> other has not been developed because I just thought of it a few months
ago,
> and I'm as capable of being lazy and worthless as anybody.
>
> "Takes one to know one!" Yep, I was one of the pioneer "LandLine Lids",
> too, back in the pre-Internet days. Ask me about it, sometime. Since I
> learned my lesson and moved on to better things, I figure that I don't
have
> anything to be ashamed of.
>
> Doing it after you realize how destructive it is, be it out of pride,
> laziness or stubborn-ness.... That's shameful.
>
> Moving right along...
>
> HF Multicast:
>
> AMSAT uses multicast for it's dirtside BBS's, and the NWS uses multicast
for
> it's VHF EMWIN broadcasts. It's a proven concept that's been around a
while,
> but not used yet on HF. - We could pioneer that, you know... Make a
> contribution not only to other hams, but to people around the world. We
are
> not by any means the only ones who would benefit from the development of
HF
> multicast. Why not continue the old tradition among hams of making
> significant contributions to the world's ability to communicate
effectively
> with radio? IMHO, we should NEVER pass up opportunities like the one
> presented by HF multicast.
>
> Here's how HF multicast could solve or greatly ease our problem with
> those wide open spaces between packet LANS:
>
> Multicast is basically one transmitting station distributing data to an
> unlimited number of unconnected receiving stations. It's a broadcast
system.
> I checked with the ARRL rules 'n regs guys before doing the first
> experimental HF multicast transmissions last year, and they assured me
that
> it was as legal as church on Sunday, and make sure you don't get caught.
>
To be continued in digest: hd_99_237M
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
