| |
PA2AGA > TCPDIG 27.08.96 15:03l 212 Lines 7900 Bytes #-10906 (0) @ EU
BID : TCP_96_171B
Read: GUEST
Subj: TCP-Group Digest 96/171B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0KCP<OE9XPI<HB9EAS<DB0GE<DB0END<DB0RWI<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PI8GCB<
PI8WFL<PI8VNW
Sent: 960827/0948Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:56226 [Hoek v Holland] FBB5.15c
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : TCPDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA16133 ; Mon, 26 Aug 96 15:17:06 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.61/7.1) with SMTP
id AA00003460 ; Mon, 26 Aug 96 00:07:07 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga with SMTP
id AA00003427 ; Mon, 26 Aug 96 00:01:16 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga-1 (NET/Mac 2.3.61/7.5.4) with SMTP
id AA00007906 ; Mon, 26 Aug 96 00:01:02 MET
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 96 23:56:12 MET
Message-Id: <tcp_96_171B>
From: pa2aga
To: tcp_broadcast@pa2aga-1
Subject: TCP-Group Digest 96/171B
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
local scrap dealer.
We have a working 56K network, some people are using MAC's, other's
are using MS Windows, I use a FreeBSD UNIX box. It all interoperates.
The cheap Linux boxes make adequate routers. I have even set up things
in the back seat of the car and have been 56K mobile. All the normal
applications you have come to know and love on the Internet work fairly
well, although we do have some congestion when somebody starts loading
web images down the 56K. CUCME works ok if you are the only one on the
56K channel.
Once people get hooked on 56K they will never go back to 1200 or even
9600 for that matter.
And now for T1 into the shack, look at all that bandwidth above 1240 MHz.
:-)
Dennis.
--
Dennis Rosenauer VE7BPE | A computer running for 2 seconds
rosenave@octoblob.rfnet.sfu.ca (home) can make as many mistakes as 20
rosenaue@mpr.ca (work) | men working for 20 years.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 00:43:41 -0700
From: "Ron Curry" <recurry@insighttec.com>
Subject: advanced networking
Dennis,
Agree with you on most points. The issue on 56k is still cost and quite a
bit of work and technical knowledge though(by the way I still haven't heard
back from you guys on the bit regen boards!). I've got over $2000 invested
in building a repeater and one node and that's just for the modems,
transverters, PI2 card, and antennas. I'm building my own duplexer to save
money (and because I can). It's fun (for me anyway) and doesn't press the
limits of my funding or technical knowledge but it seems to press both for
most of the "users" around here. So I've taken an attitude of "just do it"
and have fun but I don't see any of the high speed stuff becoming prolific
until the cost comes down and the less technically inclined can by it at
Ham Radio Outlet or the like.
Cheers,
Ron
Ron Curry
KE6WED
recurry@insighttec.com
recurry@inside.intel.com
----------
> From: Dennis Rosenauer <rosenave@octoblob.rfnet.sfu.ca>
> To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: advanced networking
> Date: Saturday, August 24, 1996 8:58 PM
>
>
> We are running a 56K network up here. 56K goes into the shack!
> We have encountered all the problems that are being talked about here.
> There is no solution but to go out an do something about it. Griping
> about it doesn't get anything done. Yes you have to spend some money,
> it is still a pretty cheap hobby compared to drag racing, sailboats, etc.
>
> 56K isn't all that expensive, if you look at some of the HF types
> around here you will find thousands of dollars of ham gear in the shack.
> A nominal HF transceiver will set you back $1000 easily these days.
> Go to any swap meet and you will find lots of hams with $500 handhelds
> strapped to their belt as a form of status symbol.
>
> To solve some of the problems mentioned we did the following:
>
> >
> > I'd like to see something like what Steve suggests: a box that bridges
> > and/or routes IP from a household Ethernet over ham radio to other
> > similar boxes.
>
> We go out to the computer swap meets and buy 2nd hand 386 and 486
> motherboards, cases, small hard drives and ethernet cards. Put it
> together, put Linux or NOS on it. Put a PIBoard in it, toss it in
> the corner of the shack and call it a router. It works and it is
> cheap. You can put the whole thing together for $100. No monitor or
> keyboard is needed with Linux (you might need a cheap monochrome card
> since some PC's won't boot without one)
>
> > Even better than the GRAPES 56kb modem, something that did
> > spread-spectrum would be a great solution. (Glenn Elmore and others
> > have proven that the only practical way to do high speed radio
> > networking is with spread spectrum - all other methods are killed by
> > multipath). We've got LOTS of spectrum at 1200 MHz, and the STA lets
> > us play in any ham band above 30 MHz.
> >
> We bought the GRAPES 56K modem kits. Everyone out here on 56K has one.
> Some of us just bought the board and EPROM and scrounged the rest of the
> parts. You're looking at $150 or so, add $20 for a box to put it in.
>
> We designed our own RF gear for 440 MHz. Sold kits to everyone in sight.
> Had a tune-up party (several times too).
>
> Got a fifo buffer and with a modem and RF deck built several 56K
repeaters
> on 440 MHz. Did our own duplexer design for 440 and 100 KHz wide data
> channels. Lots of time was spent in the machine shop on weekends making
> the duplexer, we had a "hole taping bee" to tap the approximately 200
> 6-32 holes in all the aluminum bits for the duplexer. (many beers were
> consumed, and we only broke one tap :-) ) The metal cost a few $$ at the
> local scrap dealer.
>
> We have a working 56K network, some people are using MAC's, other's
> are using MS Windows, I use a FreeBSD UNIX box. It all interoperates.
> The cheap Linux boxes make adequate routers. I have even set up things
> in the back seat of the car and have been 56K mobile. All the normal
> applications you have come to know and love on the Internet work fairly
> well, although we do have some congestion when somebody starts loading
> web images down the 56K. CUCME works ok if you are the only one on the
> 56K channel.
>
> Once people get hooked on 56K they will never go back to 1200 or even
> 9600 for that matter.
>
> And now for T1 into the shack, look at all that bandwidth above 1240 MHz.
> :-)
>
> Dennis.
>
> --
> Dennis Rosenauer VE7BPE | A computer running for 2 seconds
> rosenave@octoblob.rfnet.sfu.ca (home) can make as many mistakes as 20
> rosenaue@mpr.ca (work) | men working for 20 years.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 20:26:15 +1000
From: "Graham Broadbridge" <grahamb@peachy.apana.org.au>
Subject: PPP/SLIP in connected AX25?
> Terry Dawson wrote,
> >
> > We wouldn't have to spend so much time worrying about one or two bytes
of
> > overhead if we'd get off our God-damned butts and improve the link
speeds
> > to something approaching modern technology.
> >
> > $500 for 56kb isn't all that unaffordable, eh?
>
> ha ha. Hey, no arguments from me on that point! It would be awfully
> lonely
> here as a 56k user though.
I'd like to know what I could use to get me online at 56Kbps for only $500.
Regards,
Graham.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 09:30:50 -0700
From: Ron Curry <recurry@insighttec.com>
Subject: PPP/SLIP in connected AX25?
At 08:26 PM 8/24/96 +1000, Graham Broadbridge wrote:
>> Terry Dawson wrote,
>> >
>> > We wouldn't have to spend so much time worrying about one or two bytes
>of
>> > overhead if we'd get off our God-damned butts and improve the link
>speeds
>> > to something approaching modern technology.
>> >
>> > $500 for 56kb isn't all that unaffordable, eh?
>>
>> ha ha. Hey, no arguments from me on that point! It would be awfully
>> lonely
>> here as a 56k user though.
>
>I'd like to know what I could use to get me online at 56Kbps for only $500.
>
>Regards,
>Graham.
>
Yes, I've put together two of the WA4DSY modems and here's what it cost:
- MODEM ~$400 for the new one, $250 for the GRAPES (kit)
- Transverters - $580 each (900mHz, save ~$120 if you can do 2m or
To be continued in digest: tcp_96_171C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
