| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 25.05.03 10:08l 272 Lines 9468 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 1379-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, May 22, 5/7
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0SON<DB0SIF<DB0EA<DB0RES<ON0AR<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030524/1345Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:862 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:1379-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: RE: APRS-NET COncept!
From: Wes Johnston <wes@johnston.net>
Date: 22 May 2003 16:19:08 -0400
X-Message-Number: 34
Doesn't AMSAT already have a protocol (WISP?) which harvests data from
other users passively and requests fills as needed? DOn't wanna
reinvent the wheel..
Wes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: APRS-NET COncept!
From: Miller Scott Contr 30SCS/FTI <Scott.Miller@vandenberg.af.mil>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 20:20:10 -0000
X-Message-Number: 35
I was thinking about this when Wes brought up his forms program. The
software should probably be in the form of a local proxy. You'd configure
your browser to use e.g. 127.0.0.1:3128 as the proxy server, and the AX.25
gateway program listens on port 3128 and does all of the http encapsulation
and compression.
It's still really a job for connected mode, or a pseudo-connected mode -
large packet sizes, with each packet carrying a header identifying the file
it belongs to and which block it's carrying. After the end of a file,
clients could request multiple retransmits in a single packet, and keep at
it until it's all been heard.
I think an excellent application for this sort of thing would be
distributing ad-hoc forms, sitreps, and so on.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: APRS-NET COncept!
From: Wes Johnston <wes@johnston.net>
Date: 22 May 2003 16:21:32 -0400
X-Message-Number: 36
Why use a packet frequency.... use the input of your local repeater
<ducking>... it will have an antenna tall enough to permit reliable
reception at 9600 bauds.
Wes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Ultra simple MIC-e repeater
From: David VanHorn <dvanhorn@cedar.net>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 15:24:06 -0500
X-Message-Number: 37
At 04:09 PM 5/22/2003 -0400, Wes Johnston wrote:
>Here's the plan yall..(Trying to sound like Dr Evil in Austin
>Powers)....
>********************************************
>Simple dual baud rate MIC-E for voice repeaters.
>
>1)A 9600 TNC in kiss mode hooked to the discriminator out of your local
>voice repeater. Any packets heard @9600 on your local repeater input
>frequency will be send out it's serial port via a diode to 1200 baud
>TNC. The serial OUTPUT is run thru a diode to another TNC (see step 3)
Whenever talk of diodes and serial ports arises, so do my hackles. If
you're meaning to mix two 232 transmitters into one 232 receiver this way,
you'll end up with corrupted data.
To do this right, you need two uart receivers, feeding one transmitter. To
keep things relatively simple, one uart runs twice the speed of the other,
or in this case 4x. You receive at 9600 on uart A, and at 1200 on uart B.
You send both streams on UART A's transmit side, to the TNC. You send
packets as packets, you don't interleave the bytes.
You still have to deal with times when the TNC can't accept the data.
You either buffer packets, or drop them on the floor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Ultra simple MIC-e repeater
From: Wes Johnston <wes@johnston.net>
Date: 22 May 2003 16:32:52 -0400
X-Message-Number: 38
Good eye Dave, but this won't be a problem... since both TNCs hear the
same audio souce, and they decode 2 different signals which are mutually
exclusive, both TNCs will never talk at the same time. There will not
ever be a collision on the serial port in this setup.
Wes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: APRS-NET COncept!
From: Rich Garcia <k4gps@bellsouth.net>
Date: 22 May 2003 16:40:09 -0400
X-Message-Number: 39
Was there not a QST article a year or so back on this topic ? I am thinking
that maybe W2FS wrote it but I may very well be wrong on the author.
Rich
On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 16:05, Bob Bruninga wrote:
>
>The way I see it, we have the TNC's.
>They can do 9600 baud (with proper planning)
>We have the need for linking the internet
>out to the field...
>
>Maybe its time for someone to take this on.
>
>de WB4APR, Bob
--
Rich Garcia K4GPS
Jupiter Farms FL.
www.richgarcia.net
Jupiter Farms Community Emergency Response Team
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: "Gap Filler" digipeaters
From: "Joseph C. Bender" <n8xre@benderhome.net>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 16:42:45 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 40
Say I've got a 5-10 watt transmitter with an antenna setup that can "hear"
most stations within a 20 mile radius. Say I can reliably (> 90% of
attempts) hit a WIDE that might be able to hear most of what I can hear,
but low-powered mobiles or portables may not be able to get out in my
immediate area. Add on top of that other fairly close RELAY capable
stations that may or may not operate all the time, while my station would.
Now, as it's a station slightly on the low-powered side, should I go
ahead and accept and digi RELAY packets outward, to get them to the WIDE?
Or, am I wasting my time and everyone else's by setting this up and
potentially causing network confusion or congestion?
The obvious answer is "coodination", but seeing how much that really
happens, I'd really rather not step on anybody's toes, if I can help it.
Okay, this may have been beaten to death before, but the mail archives
aren't terribly easy to search, and I've read postings and google hits
that support either "Yay or Nay".
--
Joseph C. Bender
n8xre at benderhome net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Ultra simple MIC-e repeater
From: David VanHorn <dvanhorn@cedar.net>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 15:39:32 -0500
X-Message-Number: 41
At 04:32 PM 5/22/2003 -0400, Wes Johnston wrote:
>Good eye Dave, but this won't be a problem... since both TNCs hear the
>same audio souce, and they decode 2 different signals which are mutually
>exclusive, both TNCs will never talk at the same time. There will not
>ever be a collision on the serial port in this setup.
I wouldn't be so sure.
There's delays between the audio and the output, and I wouldn't bet on them
being the same in both cases. I also wouldn't bet on either detecting the
other's carrier.
Call me suspicious, but I'm used to moving money in modem packets.
They get upset when you drop their money..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: APRS-NET COncept!
From: Miller Scott Contr 30SCS/FTI <Scott.Miller@vandenberg.af.mil>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 20:49:50 -0000
X-Message-Number: 42
That's true, but too often these days you can't get around without being
able to see the images. People do stupid tricks with graphics-only
navigation, or worse, flash-only. I really feel sorry for blind folks using
screen-scraping readers. My general rule for web design is that if I can't
use it in Lynx, it needs to be fixed.
Also, things like frames are going to result in multiple requests. Having
all of the components returned as a single tarball would save a lot of back
and forth.
Scott
N1VG
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Garcia [mailto:k4gps@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 11:43 AM
To: Miller Scott Contr 30SCS/FTI
Cc: TAPR APRS Special Interest Group
Subject: Re: [aprssig] RE: APRS-NET COncept!
Most browsers will allow you to block web images.I guess it is a thing
from back in the dialup days. I have used it on occasion when using a
CDMA modem. They are fast but I am spoiled with DSL and it makes surfing
some things much more plesant.
Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: APRS-NET COncept!
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 17:05:00 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 43
On 22 May 2003, Wes Johnston wrote:
>Why use a packet frequency.... use the input of your local repeater
><ducking>... it will have an antenna tall enough to permit reliable
>reception at 9600 bauds.
Yes, entirly possible, but these days, there are so many unused packet
channels, why bother with the added complexity...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: APRS-NET COncept!
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 17:03:27 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 44
On 22 May 2003, Wes Johnston wrote:
>Doesn't AMSAT already have a protocol (WISP?) which harvests data from
>other users passively and requests fills as needed? DOn't wanna
>reinvent the wheel..
But onlf for the PACSAT BBS protocol. WOuld be a kludge to apply that to
the internet, I think.
de WB4APR@amsat.org, Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Ultra simple MIC-e repeater
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 17:15:33 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 45
On Thu, 22 May 2003, David VanHorn wrote:
>Whenever talk of diodes and serial ports arises, so do my hackles. If
>you're meaning to mix two 232 transmitters into one 232 receiver this
>way, you'll end up with corrupted data.
I do it all the time as long as you dont have simultaneous data. In this
case, there can be only one Packet at a time heard on the Voice repeater.
So both a 1200 and 9600 baud packets cannot possibly occcur at the same
time.
de WB4APR@amsat.org, Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
