Your packet network?
Mark Willis
There is a possibilty thet the packet network in GI will be overhauled in
the near future. We suffer from enormous congestion problems in 144.650, but
there is little traffic on the other 2m freqs. (so far)
What I need to know is how is the packet network arranged in your area? The
main problem seems to be a lack of freqs on 2m, the bandplan being:
144.625 TCP/IP
144.650 BBS and Network access
144.675 PacketCluster
The real problem is having nodes AND bbs's on 650. How does the network
in your area get around this problem? Also, what type of links do you run,
and at what speed?
Any suggestions gratefully received...
-Mark
--
Mark Willis Internet: ma...@icsbelf.co.uk
ICS Computing Group Ltd. Packet: GI0PEZ@GB7TED.#63.GBR.EU
Belfast AmprNet: 44.131.15.3
Northern Ireland
Bernd Sieker
[stuff about lack of 2m packet frequencies deleted]
|>
|> The real problem is having nodes AND bbs's on 650.
No, it's not! The real problem is that you want to use 2m for a packet
network. In Germany nearly all user access frequencies are on 70cm and
links are mainly on 70cm and 23 cm, some are already at 13cm.
I don't know of any links (except private provisional links) that are
on 2m.
So why on earth would you want a complete packet network on 2m?
|> [...] How does the network
|> in your area get around this problem? Also, what type of links do you run,
|> and at what speed?
Using 70cm band, of course. Most links on 9600Bd, some older ones on
1200Bd, some experimental links already on 19200Bd.
73s de dg6yhi,
Bernd
--
_ Real Life Bernd Sieker, Universitaet Bielefeld
only // IRC Pink
Amiga__// HAM Radio DG 6 YHI
\X/ email bsi...@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
--------------------------------------
Minister, minister, care for your children, order them not
into damnation to eliminate those who would trespass against
you. (Fish, Forgotten Sons)
Mark Willis
>In article <CCD90...@icsbelf.co.uk>, ma...@icsbelf.co.uk (Mark Willis) writes:
>
> [stuff about lack of 2m packet frequencies deleted]
>|>
>|> The real problem is having nodes AND bbs's on 650.
>
>No, it's not! The real problem is that you want to use 2m for a packet
>network.
>
I dont. Thats the point of the question... I want to know what everyone else
does INSTEAD of having links on 2m!
>In Germany nearly all user access frequencies are on 70cm and
>links are mainly on 70cm and 23 cm, some are already at 13cm.
Most packet users only have 2m and it would be unreasonable of us to force
them onto 70cm, so we need primary access on that band. Also, we can't use
23cms here, cos some other guys already have it...
(Followups redirected to rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc)
-------
David Hough
>
>There is a possibilty thet the packet network in GI will be overhauled in
>the near future. We suffer from enormous congestion problems in 144.650, but
>there is little traffic on the other 2m freqs. (so far)
>
>What I need to know is how is the packet network arranged in your area? The
>main problem seems to be a lack of freqs on 2m, the bandplan being:
>
> 144.625 TCP/IP
> 144.650 BBS and Network access
> 144.675 PacketCluster
>
>The real problem is having nodes AND bbs's on 650. How does the network
>in your area get around this problem? Also, what type of links do you run,
>and at what speed?
>
various smaller islands) is vastly improved over a few years ago. I can
connect on dedicated links from Bristol all the way up to Yorkshire, and if
I looked hard enough, I reckon I could get to Scotland if a certain link
reappeared. Apart from one link, which recently got clobbered by a
lightning strike, I think it is 9600baud all the way from Bristol to
Emley Moor, and perhaps beyond. All this is taking place on 70cms and 23cms.
The recommendations for networking are to put links on 430 and 439MHz in
the 70cms band, with the 432 and 433MHz freqs allocated for user access. Other
links can go on 1240/1299MHz, and on higher bands if you can manage it. There
should be no linking on 2M unless you are in a very quiet location. By doing
this, and coordinating user access frequencies, it is possible to end up with
nine user access frequencies (three on 2M, six on 70cm), plus possibly three
or four on 4M, depending on local usage of that band.
The best way of doing links may well be to run full-duplex, so that a given
site can have all its transmitters in one sub-band, and have receivers in
another sub-band (local example: GB7BH will transmit to all its neighbours on
1299MHz and receive from them on different 439MHz frequencies, so eliminating
hidden-station effect).
You may need site clearance for non-2M stuff to be legal, but the sooner you
apply for it, the quicker it will arrive. In the area around Bristol, there
are very few properly integrated nodes which have not got site clearance, and
frequencies have been juggled so that those nodes operate on frequencies
covered under the normal UK licence (5 nodes out of 19).
For the benefit of non-UK stations, 'site clearance' is a wonderful procedure
which has to be used in the UK to get permission to operate unattended
stations (which may be at home or at remote sites) on certain bands, most
notably 70cms and 23cms, although some recent relaxation in the rules has
made parts of 70cms a bit easier to use. The time taken for site clearance
varies from two months (best ever recorded) to over two years. This may
explain a bit of the background to the UK using mainly 2M for packet operation,
because it does not have these problems.
Dave
*****************************************************************************
* G4WRW @ GB7WRW.#41.GBR.EU AX25 * Start at the beginning. Go on *
* da...@llondel.demon.co.uk Internet * until the end. Then stop. *
* g4...@g4wrw.ampr.org Amprnet * (the king to the white rabbit) *
*****************************************************************************
Gary Coffman
>the near future. We suffer from enormous congestion problems in 144.650, but
>there is little traffic on the other 2m freqs. (so far)
>
>What I need to know is how is the packet network arranged in your area? The
>main problem seems to be a lack of freqs on 2m, the bandplan being:
>
> 144.625 TCP/IP
> 144.650 BBS and Network access
> 144.675 PacketCluster
>
>The real problem is having nodes AND bbs's on 650. How does the network
>in your area get around this problem? Also, what type of links do you run,
>and at what speed?
In Georgia, we use the LAN system (actually should be MAN, but the term
has already become corrupted too much to fix it now). We have several
2 meter frequencies, and a couple of 440 MHz frequencies for user access
to the system at 1200 and 9600 baud. We don't segregate TCP/IP from other
packet. The BBS's operate a user port on the LAN frequency, and a second
port on the backbone and forwarding frequency. That port is not for users.
It's only used to forward traffic from one LAN BBS to another. The user's
only access to the backbone is via his LAN switch node. That too is dual
ported, and allows a user in one LAN to contact a user in another LAN
via the backbone relay facilities, or act as a normal repeater node on
the LAN frequency depending on what the user needs to do. Some LAN
switches are actually duplex repeaters (like a voice repeater) with
the switch node attached. The backbone links are at 56 kilobaud operating
either at 70 cm or in the 222 MHz band, again in a checkerboard fashion
to facilitate frequency reuse. The system doesn't yet cover the entire
state, so some stations must link in via various kludges if they are
located in more remote areas.
That's the GRAPES system. It currently has thruput in excess of our
needs. There is also a separate PacketCluster network operating on a
common frequency at 9600 baud, with ocasional separate user access
frequencies for individual clusters, and there is a ROSE chat network
operating on a single frequency statewide. These latter are easily
overloaded due to their topology, and usage is restricted, IE no file
transfers or mail forwarding.
Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV |"If 10% is good enough | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems | for Jesus, it's good | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way | enough for Uncle Sam."| emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | -Ray Stevens |