U.S. Packet Net

The terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 and subsequent events have highlighted the need for more advanced, more comprehensive amateur radio emergency communications. Hams have enjoyed increased cooperation and respect from many government agencies and officials in the wake of 9-11, including a special message of praise and encouragement to U.S. amateurs from president George W. Bush.

At the same time, significant advances have been made in the equipment and software availble to digital amateur radio networkers, making it possible to build network we could only dream about in years past. Amateurs not only have a clear mandate to develop our capability to provide communications in times of emergency or disaster, but we also have the means to do so in a meaningful fashion.
Packet radio (in conjunction with other digital modes) has enormous potential to provide fast, accurate emergency/disaster communications. With the recent resurge of interest, several of our large-scale VHF/UHF networks have begun to expand and upgrade, and new packet networks are again springing up around the nation.

By building and developing independent, amateur radio network that does not depend upon standard, non-ham methods of communicating such as the Internet, amateurs arrainge to be there when they are needed the very most - when traditional methods of communication have broken down or become overloaded during the course of an emergency. Our mandate is to provide independent, alternate emergency communications and only networked amateur radio is relevant to that purpose.

Soon, we can reasonably expect to begin tying our regional networks together into a cohesive, national digital communications network, completely seperate and independent, through the participation of thousands of American hams. It is a large, ongoing task, not something we can expect to "finish", as our networks must not only grow, they must also be maintained and upgraded as we go along.

Now is the time for amateur packet radio networkers to share information, get to know each other and work together more closely than they ever have before. We will be addressing a challenge, answering to a mandate and having a good deal of fun while we are at it. It is this spirit within the hobby that USPN is here to facilitate. We dedicate our efforts to the many amateurs who participate in this fine aspect of amateur radio, and to the people of the United States of America.

Charles Brabham, #N5PVL
webmaster@uspacket.net
http://www.uspacket.net

[K5DMI]

I agree about the need for amateurs to come together and develop a strategy. #The recent Shuttle disaster proves that amateurs can work hand in hand in times of trouble.

Here in Missouri, we have a new state ARES coordinator; one of his first tasks was to appoint a coordinator for the digital modes. #I don't know whether a state packet network is in the works. #I'd heard that it fell through last year. #Hopefully, we'll see some unified movement in the amateur community.

[w0jrs]

Packet has a definite need, but I'd strongly encourage fellow digital mode hams to look at going a step forward, rather than embracing a stale and dying legacy packet architecture.

IPv6 presents a great deal of promise for digital RF modes. Among the new benefits of the next-generation IP protocol is the foundation IPv6 presents for IP mobility, which has definite benefits in a amateur packet world. IPv6 also has benefits for device addressing in a wireless world that are tremendous; something hams need to jump on before part 15 users beat us to it.

Think about it... a national IPv6-based amateur disaster recovery network. Much could and should be done to work on such a system, giving the emerging international climate. Unfortunately, the financial climate in the commercial sector has limited pursuit of such projects, not to mention near total disregard for risks such as EMP (see http://commdocs.house.gov/committ...._0f.htm (http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has280010.000/has280010_0f.htm) for a status). Hams really have an opportunity to step up.

Interestingly, there is an IPv6 Application Contest (with an idea deadline of March 3, and a implementation contest deadline of June). "ARF-IPv6" (Amateur Radiofrequency IPv6) or some other packet using IPv6 project might have an interesting chance at winning one of the prizes, given the significant international value of such a project.

Check out the contest at:
http://www.v6pc.jp/apc/en/index.html

And to get started using IPv6, be sure to visit: http://www.freenet6.net/

Jamie/W0JRS

Just the other morning I received the call wishing me a hearty congratulations on becoming a Licensed Ham operator. It may be frivolous to some but not to me, That call made my day. The gentleman that gave me the 3rd party call actually had to call 2 days in a row. I think that his persistance in giving me the message (no matter how trivial) shows that he is a dedicated ham operator. I hope I can become as dedicated as he is.

[KB9YKY]

There are well established nets that already can handle emergency/disaster traffic....as well of plenty of individuals. Such traffic is handled just fine with the reliable, standard conventional modes, ssb and cw. In a disaster/emergency situation, no need or reason to play with packets, computers, etc.

[n5zvp]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are well established nets that already can handle emergency/disaster traffic....as well of plenty of individuals. Such traffic is handled just fine with the reliable, standard conventional modes, ssb and cw. In a disaster/emergency situation, no need or reason to play with packets, computers, etc. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Packet radio and computers are resources and tools that can be useful in emergencies, why discount them?

Chris
N5ZVP

[w0jrs]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YKY @ Feb. 15 2003,05:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are well established nets that already can handle emergency/disaster traffic....as well of plenty of individuals. Such traffic is handled just fine with the reliable, standard conventional modes, ssb and cw. In a disaster/emergency situation, no need or reason to play with packets, computers, etc.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That's a pretty limited view of networks, unfortunately. Digital modes, especially packet, allow much greater amounts of information to be transmitted, while also giving the transmission greater reliability and accuracy.

Conduct a SET test, for instance, and have 350 names (e.g. injured parties) to report back. Multiply this times a few dozen. Having fun yet in CW?

Alternately, enter the information once. Copy/paste as the report moves along in digital mode up to HQ, or just forward the message (depending upon the digital protocol being used).

Likewise, we have an increasing amount of information that assumes a digital network will be used. One bad EMP pulse and we're back to needing hams and a digital mode to handle emergency traffic (how many of you have taken preparations for EMP? be sure to read the Congressional testimony I've posted and consider some of the recommendations - all hams should be aware of these precautions).

Sure, we could still go back to CW and SSB (or even go back to smoke signals and carrier pigeons for that matter), but like any tool, each has its role and application where it is most efficient. Certainly, we need to continue CW for its efficiency and low overhead - we can't assume we'll have the latest laptop and fancy setup to use. Alternately, limit ham assistance to CW and SSB nets and we become increasingly obsolete and outdated in emergency communications.

Incidentally, this poster refers to "playing" with packets and computers and apparently has a misconception of where digital modes are going. A hardened IPv6 digipeating system could provide a limited transport facility for signal regeneration, carrying amateur digital traffic across the country - and never touch a "peecee" until it's reached its destination. Think about a carrier IPv4 network, for instance.

In my day job, I run a regional microwave network that runs IPv4 traffic, running across tower sites over a backbone and then feeding communities via their water towers. Weather hardened Geode processors (low DC consumption, low heat, etc.) and a dedicated routing platform on industrial components makes it all work.

Integrate transmission on a VHF/UHF frequency where multipath is more effective (though thruput is much lower than 6 GHz-33 GHz point-to-point microwave! ) and you'll have a digipeating IP network useful for the applications described above.

Overall, hams need to challenge the stale early 80's definition of packet as "log into bbs in a TNC, leave a message, log off" and recognize that digital modes have gone rather far in the past 20 years. Otherwise, we're left in the "BASIC programming on an Apple II" days of RF.

Jamie/W0JRS

[AD6XS]

We definetely need a nationwide digital network, with a high speed backbone. If only hams can get over their EGO'S AND DIFFERENCES, we might already have one in place by now.

Looks like not much will come of this anyway, so might as well sign onto the HSMM project the ARRL is currently working on. A backbone on the 10GHz band with output on the 2.4GHz band using modified wireless network cards is in the works. See following URL: ARRL High Speed Networks Project (http://www.arrl.org/hsmm/).

Eventually it will come. But only if we band together, and accept that not everyone can have their way.

Sam
AD6XS
18yr old Young Ham,
Colorado
Website: http://www.hamquick.com
Get your Tech. License. Nows the time.

[ac7go]

Your comment makes a lot of sense. It became apparent to me that the NTS is outmoded while taking the emergency communications course. The NTS has built-in bottlenecks which would overload it in a hurry in the event of a large emergency. HF and VHF/UHF packet can circumvent bottlenecks because paths can be re-routed.

For hams to become proficient with and to establish working packet nets would do a lot to preserve our reason for being in the contention over spectrum.

Max Nielsen AC7GO

[KB6LWN]

I suppose I could sub-title this response,
"Fed up with the ignorance! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif "


I whole-heartedly agree with an increase and implementation of using 'packet' on a wider base in the Amateur Community for comms (I'm an ampr.org (JNOS) fan myself), but I have to add that IF the same ignorance and lack of willingness to make SURE one knows what they are doing BEFORE using the 'network' - it will probably end up much like 'the internet' and we ALL know how many 'ignorant' users there are out HERE! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif And we won't EVEN get into the problem of SPAM!


I get so frustrated at the lack of 'just plain common sense' of some people when sending messages into a wide-based group that it's a wonder I have ANY hair left! So... Along with the addition of a massive packet architecture to the traffic paths, let us make SURE that those with access to it KNOW what they're doing... Perhaps a (non-FCC) certification that one must obtain before being granted access might work.
Otherwise, there is BOUND to be those that just wander 'helter skelter' through the network with no thought as to their operations, and THEN have the gall to get uppity when anyone mentions there is a 'proper' way to do things... <grrr>


JM2cW - TIoLI


73 Gang!

[K5MAR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w0jrs @ Feb. 14 2003,23:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Packet has a definite need, but I'd strongly encourage fellow digital mode hams to look at going a step forward, rather than embracing a stale and dying legacy packet architecture.

IPv6 presents a great deal of promise for digital RF modes. Among the new benefits of the next-generation IP protocol is the foundation IPv6 presents for IP mobility, which has definite benefits in a amateur packet world. IPv6 also has benefits for device addressing in a wireless world that are tremendous; something hams need to jump on before part 15 users beat us to it.

Think about it... a national IPv6-based amateur disaster recovery network. Much could and should be done to work on such a system, giving the emerging international climate. Unfortunately, the financial climate in the commercial sector has limited pursuit of such projects, not to mention near total disregard for risks such as EMP (see http://commdocs.house.gov/committ...._0f.htm (http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has280010.000/has280010_0f.htm) for a status). Hams really have an opportunity to step up.

/snip/

Jamie/W0JRS[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this some kind of Internet-based system? #I don't see anything that is based on an Internet connection as being viable in an emergency situation. #My local experience has been that phone service, or any Internet connection that is cable-based, will fail during a local or area emergency. #Either the system will overload or key parts, such as the phone lines, will be destroyed. #A completely RF-based system is preferable. #I don't see EMP as being a problem, though, except possibly as a terrorist strike in a limited area. #The idea of a wide-area EMP strike faded with the end of the Cold War, IMHO.

Mark - K5MAR

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K5MAR @ Feb. 15 2003,18:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this some kind of Internet-based system? #I don't see anything that is based on an Internet connection as being viable in an emergency situation. #My local experience has been that phone service, or any Internet connection that is cable-based, will fail during a local or area emergency. #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ok, I'll be happy to correct you. #No, this is not about an Internet dependent system, although it would employ new technologies that are starting to be used in the Internet. #Some very tried and proven data networking technologies would be used as well. #It is intended to be an Amateur RADIO based system specifically to avoid dependence on local phone systems. #It would allow digital content to be transmitted over amateur radio out of a disaster area and then either transfer to the high-speed public Internet (if available) or stay on an amateur RADIO data network to its destination. #All you would need is a handy-talkie, a TNC, and a modest laptop computer with the software installed to connect to the system.
While you probably would not see packet as a first-responder technology, it would be brought in very soon to handle moving large amounts of data that CW and voice are just too slow to effectively move. #One specific use we are planning on locally is establishing a packet BBS at one of the area EOCs and storing copies of all the forms and documents that might be needed in an emergency.

[kg6ath]

Interesting topic going here.

In an emergency, traffic handlers get swamped with Emergency & Priority traffic. Dont even THINK aboiut the welfare traffic.

Whats cool about packet is that you can sort the traffic and let the welfare traffic stack up on a server untill you can cope with it.

I would argue that NTS is not obsolete. They are just dying off faster than they can fill the gaps. We still need NTS to handle the final delivery of messages, if nothing else.

Right now portions of NTS are spliced together with internet.
In an emergency, the internet backbone will survive but local access to it wont. This where packet comes in. Lets use packet to fill the gaps where
NTS must depend on internet.

The country is dependent on the internet and it is vulnerable.
We should wean ham radio off internet and build a robust packet net.
This way during internet failures, we dont get taken out with it.

Can you imagine sometime where a massive DDoS attack on the US internet, and the CERT coordination of recovery gets sent via packet instead?
And the headline the next day says that ham radio saved the internet?

Kinda cool, aint it ?

[w0jrs]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AD6XS @ Feb. 15 2003,10:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We definetely need a nationwide digital network, with a high speed backbone...might as well sign onto the HSMM project the ARRL is currently working on...backbone on the 10GHz band with output on the 2.4GHz band using modified wireless network cards is in the works.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Unfortunately the HSMM project is relatively misguided in its initial implementation project (in a typical engineering "finding a problem to fix with technology in hand" approach). The goals stated are nice, but rather broad and unfocused. I wouldn't expect it to go much further than a bunch of 802.11b experimentations.

For instance, without line of sight, nearly everything above 1 GHz is useless. How are hams going to rent the tower facilities for a national backbone? I run a regional microwave network as my day job, and can attest that even with a pile of money, it isn't cheap.

And then there's the assumption that needs questioned - a nationwide high speed backbone for hams? Why? If hams are called upon to get the traffic through, we've got bigger problems and "high-speed backbone" isn't a requirement. Evaluating potential scenarios that would necessitate this network's use, 2.4 GHz DSSS gear simply doesn't fit the bill. For instance, one pulse weapon would wreak havoc in this consumer electronics gear. Slower FM equipment can still carry critical messages and perhaps benefit from greater reliability and protection than consumer spread spectrum components.

I read through the HSMM details and unfortunately realized that things are still being driven by technical folks seeking new things to tinker with, rather than being a planned approach to a real problem. This truly is a major limitation to the amateur practice today... of those that know how to do modern digital modes, those that know the right way to implement have little free time as their skillset is in demand, and those that have gobs of time, well... :-)

Thinking positively (rant off! ), it seems like 70cm might be well situated to the challenge given that it would permit 30-45 mile multipoint relays (and handle shots even further on directional links). 70cm radios are inexpensive enough - check out Ebay auctions on Motorola Syntors and Mitreks, for example, and a packet chipset housed in a hardened package might be a good project to pursue. If the equipment was available, 1.2GHz would make for an exceptional local system, though it limits topologies a bit due to singnificant LoS factors.

For critical mass, the project ought to permit tunneling of APRS data, giving the heavily application-layer-centric but popular system a better network layer to ride upon if desired. IPv6 is a must for any forward-looking system and very much enhances the flexibility of the system.

Jamie/W0JRS

[w0jrs]

An additional thought on the subject...

If hams found out that CB radio hobbyists were leading the field in radiofrequency innovation and community assistance, do you you think they'd smile, chuck their radios and become CB enthusiasts as well? Would they shrug it off? Or would it serve as a kick in the pants to hams to get busy?

Check out http://www.locustworld.com/ and learn about meshAP and what the "undisciplined part 15 masses" are doing per experimentation.

Now, implement IPv6 instead of IPv4, put the technology on FM rather than spread spectrum, and run it in more suitable frequencies for the challenge... and promote the heck out of implementations of the code in a chipset for use in every community.

There's your "backbone," ARRL.

Jamie/W0JRS

[w0jrs]

Some additional info per some of the posts:

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this some kind of Internet-based system?

Technically, it's an "internet" system but not the "Internet" system (small vs. big "i" ). Per the OSI model, all IPv6 is doing is providing a standard protocol for layers three & four, vs. reinventing the wheel like APRS did in its implementation and building a limited, inflexible network architecture simply to serve as a transport for APRS traffic.

That's the important thing APRS missed. It failed to anticipate other uses of the network and ended up wasting frequency, time and effort on a dead-end architecture. IP, on the other hand, succeeded by being open and expandable for uses it never envisioned (e.g. http).

and w7eg writes:
> All you would need is a handy-talkie, a TNC, and a modest laptop computer with the software installed to connect to the system.

As mentioned in an earlier post, I'd like to see conceptually similar to an amateur radio wireless Jini. A little box with a RF interface and a device interface that handles intermediate layers of the network model.

One other advantage of IPv6 I'll mention is that prioritization of traffic is aided natively in the protocol. However, the FCC's going to have to deal with the whole encryption issue sooner rather than later, as IPv6 can facilitate that and there will be good cases for doing so.

I'm pulling out that 1200 TNC and firing my IPv6 packet back up this weekend!

Jamie/W0JRS

[K5MAR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w7eg @ Feb. 16 2003,00:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K5MAR @ Feb. 15 2003,18:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this some kind of Internet-based system? #I don't see anything that is based on an Internet connection as being viable in an emergency situation. #My local experience has been that phone service, or any Internet connection that is cable-based, will fail during a local or area emergency. #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ok, I'll be happy to correct you. #No, this is not about an Internet dependent system, although it would employ new technologies that are starting to be used in the Internet. #Some very tried and proven data networking technologies would be used as well. #It is intended to be an Amateur RADIO based system specifically to avoid dependence on local phone systems. #/snip/[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ah-h-h, thank you! #I went to the sites listed but couldn't find anything specifically saying radio, or Internet for that matter, but figuring that IP stood for Internet Protocall, I wasn't sure. #I've seen too many people touting some kind of VoIP or internet backbone #linking system for use in emergencies, and I just have my doubts about relying on such systems when the you-know-what hits the rotary air handlers. #Locally, we are looking into reviving packet operations from their current dormant condition due to the need for handling data volumes not suitable for voice nets during emergency operations. #But something like this may prove to be superior in actual use. #However, packet does have an installed base of people who know how to use it, vs the learning curve for people changing to a new system. #We shall see.

Mark - K5MAR

[kb9zll]

In an earlier post, one person wrote....."In a disaster/emergency situation, no need or reason to play with packets, computers, etc."
Are you serious!!!!!!! While packet radio may be a bit on what a normal person would call slow, it is still the most reliable means of transporting information. Here's a question sir.... would you like your name to be broadcast over the air from the Red Cross shelter to the "authorities" handeling the status of every person in a disaster area? I know I woulden't.... the news media, and general public themselves have scanners whom we all know are well capable of VHF-UHF. Another Point.... in what it would take 10-15 minuites to broadcast over the air, it could take less than 5 to do it in packet radio. In addition to that speed increace, you can also transport much more information in that short time. While all of us may not have the knowledge to use packet, or any digital modes for that matter, for those of us that can, it's of vital importance! Explain to me what can't packet, or digital modes do that voice can't?

Some interesting replies!

Ahem! # #I hate to be the one to point this out, but there are two camps involved in packet radio today:

Camp 1: Talks about doing something with IP, at high-speed.

Camp 2: Actually does something with AX25, at low to medium speed.

When I say "actually does something" in this context, I'm not talking about individual efforts, or small experimental networks, but instead I mean large-scale, organized networks that make a difference in the real world. All of the existing ones are AX25 networks.

To see these, go to: http://www.uspacket.net and push the "Network" button. We have several packet networks in the U.S. that are in the "awesome" category.

No "IP Only" packet network has even remotely approached the level of usefulness I'm talking about.

That's a shame, because the benefits in using IP are obvious.

Still - The fact remains. Hams just do not appear to get excited about IP in large numbers, and large numbers of participants is much more important than winning or losing another battle in the protocol wars.

The idea is to get something done.

To cut through the obfuscation and nonsense involved in "protocol wars", the attitude at USPN is that success talks and vapor systems walk. We look around at what actually flies in the real ham radio world, and what doesn't.

What comes up here in the U.S. are AX25 systems, featuring 1.2kb access with 9.6 and some 19.2kb backbone links. On HF, the CLOVER and PACTOR II systems do more (from a networking standpoint) than the rest combined. The sucessful networks all pretty much look this way. Take a look for yourself!

As far as experimental systems go, I've run across the same problem with the multicast software I lean toward. It's use would be a real advance, it does a lot more, etc. and so on, but the fact is that not very many hams are excited about using it. No "critical mass".

I have heard numerous "critical mass" predictions related to amateur tcpip over the years. When a hacked-up version of normal BBS code was patched onto "NOS", critical mass was supposed to be just around the corner. That flopped, so next it was the ability to use regular tcpip apps included with operating systems that was supposed to bring on "critical mass".. That flopped too. Now it's the wireless networking equipment. That will flop too, so sorry. "Critical Mass" is not just around the corner.

The reason for it has nothing to do with mythical "killer apps",#improved networking protocol, or inexpensive wireless networking equipment. Fact is, not many hams warm up to the IP stuff. They just don't go for it in significant numbers. For whatever reason, that's how it goes.

So... When anybody asks me what is being used for digital amateur radio networking, what really works and can be done at a reasonable cost, I recommend AX25 packet with 1.2kb access, 9.6kb (or better) backbone. On HF, CLOVER or PACTOR II do the most work, PACTOR III is the best of the best if you can afford it.

I am looking forward to being able to point out a significant achievement from an amateur radio IP group, just as I would like to point out significant use of multicast protocol. - But I can't do that right now, and right now is when things need to be done.

It's nice to be able to kick back and put in years of debate over fine points of the "protocol wars", but at USPN, we honor those who accomplish things over those who talk about doing them. Networkers who design, build, and maintain functional networks are our "experts"... The ones who walk the walk. When it comes time to get things done (Now, for example) we look to these great Hams to see what tools and methods are most likely to produce good results.


Charles, #N5PVL
webmaster@uspacket.net
http://www.uspacket.net

[wa7nwp]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n5pvl @ Feb. 16 2003,21:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ahem! # #I hate to be the one to point this out, but there are two camps involved in packet radio today:

Camp 1: Talks about doing something with IP, at high-speed.

Camp 2: Actually does something with AX25, at low to medium speed.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ah Charles, http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #you forgot about camp #3. #Doing something with IP on slow speed packet. # We've got a fairly impressive system of digital repeaters (1 at 1200 baud, 5 at 9600 and 1 at 56000) tied together by a half dozen gateways for a total about of 26 lans - of which 15 or so are active.

#Wetnet (http://www.wetnet.net)

I'll match the "actually does something" on our network with any others in your list.

OK. #Now having said that, I have to agree with much of what you've said. #We've all let things slide and the network isn't what it could nor should be. # While we (Wetnet) have been making good progress lately, it has a long way to go until it's where it should be. #It's all far too difficult to access for folks that don't want to spend a significant number of ATU's (Amateur Time Units) on setting things up. #Once it's set up, there's not all that much to do

I don't worry about critical mass. #We need to pick our little projects, make them work, share the results with interested neighbors and on to the next project.

On a personal note, I've been working to establish a reliable, alternate Email access point. #It's not hardened yet (no UPS) but it is working. #If my main Internet dies, I can continue to send and receive Email by Amateur means. #This is, IMHO, a good thing. #It's also something, still IMHO, that more hams should be able to do. #The technology isn't difficult nor expensive. #It just takes a bit of work. #Best of all, getting it working is good for a significant educational experience.

73,
Bill - WA7NWP

[N0FPE]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Good morning. I must add my 2 cents in here. I am all for the improvement of the packet network with new modes/protocals. But one must not forget that in a real time of emergency we do NOT need a system that is new and untried. AX25 is old and slow by todays standards BUT it is tried and true rock solid. Also there is a large number of AX25 type TNC's out there that are unused but could be brought online in short order. what would be ideal is an improvement in th AX25 system that does not require a complete retooling of the existing equipment. with money tight for everyone these days most cant afford to run out and get the latest and greatest. Local governments are just not willing to spend the money to install NEw and UNTRIED systems in EOC's when the old AX25 equipment is still working. So while we do need to push the envelope with new modes I think we also need to work with what we already have and improve it until the newer systems are proven. even then with the large number of old AX25 systems out there it should NEVER be dumped. If nothing else all those old TNC's stuffed in the closet could be brought out and put in service as a backup to newer systems when thses become overloaded or go down due to unforseen events.
Just my thoughts
Oh I will also say that while APRS is nice it just does not have the message/information carrying capabilities that AX25 does. I have had a few folks tll me that APRS is the wave of the future. It is nice for tracking ect. but just will not hold up under heavy loads of text transfers

73 Dan/NØFPE
running AX25 nodes for over 10 years and still going strong<even if no one is typing!!!!!>

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[kb7ntl]

Greetings,

I agree that packet has a very important role in emergency communications.

I think any mobile command post and EOC should have it.

We do here, and it is a selling point for ham radio.

Actually after many years off from "sysophood" I am in the process of putting up a node stack that withered away some years back.

Except now it will be IP linked by means of using W0RLI's SNOS system.

We need RF networking. We cannot give up on RF forwarding. The Internet is a target to crackpots and who knows who else at a minimum.

But in good weather, it is nice to have an alternative.

I am looking at the integration of RF and IP as an educational point. The "renewed" stack is being installed at a school (with NASA affiliation) that is supporting the station due to the educational properties of packet and ham radio in general. The emergency support it gives is a great bonus.

The point is, you cannot get enough of a good thing, and packet is a good thing. I am not truly abreast of the high speed angles (above 9600) going on, but there you have it. Education awaits.

I ask those critics to keep an open mind, and remember that when and if the net ever crashes, packet may be the only outlet for you to vent your dissatisfaction. Not that anyone here ever uses the net to complain.. hi

Have a great day!

73, Kevin
K6NTL / AAR9TA
PIO Orange Section
V.P. Victor Valley ARC
Sysop, LARIAT:KE6TXE

[n6kzb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YKY @ Feb. 15 2003,05:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are well established nets that already can handle emergency/disaster traffic....as well of plenty of individuals. Such traffic is handled just fine with the reliable, standard conventional modes, ssb and cw. In a disaster/emergency situation, no need or reason to play with packets, computers, etc.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This is a very narrow and shortsighted view of emergency support communications.

There are many data networks, supported and operated by amateurs, world wide.

The gauntlet from packet radio to HF Pactor III provides an ample structure for disaster support communications.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> (n5pvl @ Feb. 16 2003,21:24)
Ahem! # #I hate to be the one to point this out, but there are two camps involved in packet radio today:

Camp 1: Talks about doing something with IP, at high-speed.

Camp 2: Actually does something with AX25, at low to medium speed.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Ah Charles, # you forgot about camp #3. #Doing something with IP on slow speed packet. # We've got a fairly impressive system of digital repeaters (1 at 1200 baud, 5 at 9600 and 1 at 56000) tied together by a half dozen gateways for a total about of 26 lans - of which 15 or so are active.

Wetnet

I'll match the "actually does something" on our network with any others in your list. # [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You would only embarass yourself, Bill.

Remember that the discussion is about packet for emergency communications. - Your "network" dependes upon vulnerable non-ham Internet links in order to exist. Strictly speaking, it is not an "amateur packet radio network" at all. As you say, it is a bunch of small LANS connected to each other through the Internet. When the Internet access goes down, so does your "packet network".

With no Internet access, there would be no intercommunication between the WETNET LANS, and there would also be no communication with the rest of the world outside of those isolated LANS. - Not an ideal blueprint for an emergency Ham Radio communications system!

The genuine amateur packet radio networks you can see listed at USPN's "Network" page do not have this problem. In simulated - and real emergency conditions, where non-ham stuff such as the Internet is no longer available, these networks are fully functional, doing their job when it really counts the most.

WETNET would be dead in the water under those conditions, made lrrelevant by a dependence upon the very non-ham network you are supposed to be backing up.

Duh!

Personally, I find it sort of repugnant that you would compare your collection of Internet-linked LANS with any genuine amateur packet radio network. The people who built and maintain the networks listed at USPN have achieved relevance through "walking the walk", supplying meaningful emergency communications for years, saving lives. They use Ham Radio instead of copping out by using non-Ham stuff, and the difference shows.

Turn off all your gateways, Bill - THEN compare WETNET with the real article. - If you dare! # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Amateur tcpip has an obvious place in Ham Radio digital communications, and most especially for some emergency communications tasks. - But as an exclusive networking protocol, it has not achieved relevance. WETNET's ready resort to non-Ham links is abundant evidence that "IP only" does not fare well as an Amateur Radio networking protocol.

Where amateur tcpip "shines" is where it is utilized over a well-crafted, existing AX25 network, or when it is used to extend Internet connectivity into devastated areas. Gateways "shine" when they are used as transfer points where the Ham and Internet networks can share or exchange information.

Using gateways as WETNET does, as a lazy, third-rate substitute for building Amateur Radio network is counterproductive, making WETNET incapable of supplying emergency backup communications. The WETNET folks took the cheap way out, and they got what they paid for.

The entire concept of "IP only" is contrary to both common sense and the spirit of amateur radio. Isolating yourself from the rest of the Amateur community over "protocol war" nonsense is just that. - Nonsense.

WETNET is not listed on USPN's "Network" page because it is not anywhere near to being in the same league as the genuine Amateur Radio digital networks that are featured there.

I like a lot of the stuff you are doing with WETNET, and when the WETNET folks start using Ham Radio instead of the Internet for their "networking", I think there is potential for WETNET to have something worth taking seriously. At that point, WETNET will have "walked the walk", you will have a real network, and you will be able to supply meaningful emergency communications. You'll have to give up the "IP only" thing though, in order to hold up your end on HF.

Funding for emergency digital communications systems is much, much easier to obtain than it was just a few years ago, so my suggestion may not be so "far out" as it sounds.

Why not go "legit" ?

Charles, #N5PVL
webmaster@uspacket.net
http://www.uspacket.net

[k8nqc]

My biggest concern is to have systems that work independantly from commercial systems. Most real emergencies I have helped with over the years had a need for amateur independence. Typically, communications had to be maintained for three or four days with only the power from a single automotive size storage battery. #Mode is less important than reliability. I would like to see our field day exercise include a station operating from a single storage battery to help us determine what does work best under emergency conditions. Let's all forget our preferences for a while and help put together systems that prepare us best for the role we may be called upon to fulfill. #73, #Bill

[w0jrs]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K5MAR @ Feb. 16 2003,13:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w7eg @ Feb. 16 2003,00:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K5MAR @ Feb. 15 2003,18:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this some kind of Internet-based system? #I don't see anything that is based on an Internet connection as being viable in an emergency situation. #My local experience has been that phone service, or any Internet connection that is cable-based, will fail during a local or area emergency. #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ok, I'll be happy to correct you. #No, this is not about an Internet dependent system, although it would employ new technologies that are starting to be used in the Internet. #Some very tried and proven data networking technologies would be used as well. #It is intended to be an Amateur RADIO based system specifically to avoid dependence on local phone systems. #/snip/[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ah-h-h, thank you! #I went to the sites listed but couldn't find anything specifically saying radio, or Internet for that matter, but figuring that IP stood for Internet Protocall, I wasn't sure. #I've seen too many people touting some kind of VoIP or internet backbone #linking system for use in emergencies, and I just have my doubts about relying on such systems when the you-know-what hits the rotary air handlers. #Locally, we are looking into reviving packet operations from their current dormant condition due to the need for handling data volumes not suitable for voice nets during emergency operations. #But something like this may prove to be superior in actual use. #However, packet does have an installed base of people who know how to use it, vs the learning curve for people changing to a new system. #We shall see.

Mark - K5MAR[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ah-h-h, thank you! #I went to the sites listed but couldn't find anything specifically saying radio, or Internet for that matter, but figuring that IP stood for Internet Protocall

You're right... and actually, you make an excellent point point that the Internet (big "i") is not a great place to count upon in the event of a Major Problem.

I've dealt with the Internet since 1993, when my first company actually interconnected at MAE-E and CIX-W. I'll just say that "god, I hope they don't build airplanes that way" as a good way to sum up how networks operate sometimes. Yes, Sprint, AT&T, Worldcom, etc. have some pretty fancy data centers and all, but nobody can afford to build all levels of the OSI network model at all locations of the country. At some point, you have to trust and build upon someone elses components, and that's where even the biggest providers end up finding gotchas.

I've seen too many people touting some kind of VoIP or internet backbone #linking system for use in emergencies

I think it'd depend upon the emergency. VoIP works well when you own and manage the network, or when its overbuilt and underused. Public Internet would not be my choice for emergency communications at all; I've seen enough concern per the recent trojan outbreaks and network instability, not to mention a few weeks ago when nearly half of the root nameservers were disabled.

I like what the US Packet Net guys are doing, and have yanked out my gear to put some stuff up on a few of our towers. Per the bigger issue of a national focus, and incorporating some of the concerns here (high-speed unreliable IP over 802.11b, low-speed over AX.25 but limited in use, etc.), I think we could make some major progress with IPv6oAX25. Yes, AX25 is somewhat inefficient, but much of that is valuable in noisy or unreliable RF environments.

Interested? Email me at my callsign at americanrelay.com - per the US Packet Net guys, I'd be happy to volunteer efforts as an Packet6 prototype site. Practice what you preach, right?

Jamie/W0JRS

[KK9H]

Packet radio may seem slow when compared to other potential digital modes, but it is easy to set up a station from inexpensive, readily obtainable equipment. It is a time proven mode that works well. #I wouldn't discount it as a viable emergency communications mode for amateur radio use.

[wa7nwp]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n5pvl @ Feb. 17 2003,11:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(n5pvl @ Feb. 16 2003,21:24)

You would only embarass yourself, Bill.

Remember that the discussion is about packet for emergency communications. - Your "network" dependes upon vulnerable non-ham Internet links in order to exist. Strictly speaking, it is not an "amateur packet radio network" at all. As you say, it is a bunch of small LANS connected to each other through the Internet. When the Internet access goes down, so does your "packet network".

With no Internet access, there would be no intercommunication between the WETNET LANS, and there would also be no communication with the rest of the world outside of those isolated LANS. - Not an ideal blueprint for an emergency Ham Radio communications system![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If your assumption that the networks were only linked by gateways to the Internet was true, then you'd be half right.

I agree wholeheartedly that we need Amateur Radio RF LANs. # Multiple, redundant, links between the LAN's is what keeps the data flowing if something happens and brings down a portion of the network.

Multiple gateways, some on the Internet and some running between lans, using routing protocols such as RIP2, OSPF and BGP is what makes a TCP/IP system robust. #That's the same magic that keeps the Internet running when a link dies. #There's a backup path ready to take over automatically if the main path goes away. #Every Wetnet system with either a second radio port or an Internet connection adds to the robustness of the network.

The second side of the discussion about providing emergency communications is the fact that when there's an event that disrupts communications in an area, it's probably a short distance out of that area to a region where normal communications systems are still intact. #It's being able to bridge that distance where Amateur Radio can still shine. #(At least until somebody comes in and sets up a high speed Satellite data circuit...)

So even if a LAN is in the disrupted area, we only need to reach out and establish communications with the next LAN to be handling traffic. # So even if the various RF lans weren't interlinked, the network would still be useful.

[w0jrs]

Think there've been some good posts here on this thread - a few thoughts per the latest:

N0FPE writes:
am all for the improvement of the packet network with new modes/protocals...AX25 is old and slow by todays standards BUT it is tried and true rock solid

I think some of us might be talking about the same thing without realizing it. IPv6 and IPv4 *still* need a lower-layer protocol to ride upon. Per the OSI network model, they're layer 3-4, whereas we have a layer 1 and 2 to solve for as well. AX25 does this rather well, albeit a bit slow (but this slowness is partially due to the error correction in the protocol which has a real value in RF communications of the nature we're talking).

Per n5pvl's thoughts and concerns about using the public Internet, I'd almost have to believe that an OSPF model that tunnels across public Internet but deals with the contingency of public network failure and link-state changes might be an interesting way to bridge things together. A policy-routing approach almost needs implementation (I'm certain someone's done something that would lend itself here) - e.g. being able to rank a network segment as:

(1) totally amateur, high-speed (throw what you have at me)
(2) totally amateur, low-speed (i'll handle what i can, but if i get busy, let me know what is priority traffic and i'll discard the rest)
(3) non-amateur, but fault-tolerant and able to trust a bit more than "open Internet." I can carry traffic a third the way across the state of Iowa on my own towers this way.
(4) totally open untrusted unreliable Internet. use me when I'm here and be ready should I go away

We'd need to look at a similar implementation of policy on the traffic side. Route it if you got it and things are cool - discard and run only priority if things get bad. VoIP tunneling of repeater networks would get tossed (excessive overhead when we get busy and start running on VHF and HF links, etc.).

Obviously, there are other ways to tackle the policy routing of this - and ought to be other considerations, e.g. "this is amateur traffic" vs. "this is commercial traffic" to keep things in compliance.

Really, this could amount to a rather interesting network. Perhaps a designation of regionals with routing tables that sort things out, when to run over HF vs. satellite vs. amateur microwave - etc.

Plus, the whole thing needs to account for a loose interdependence given that the equipment owners may move, get bored, become SKs, etc, and the network needs to survive that all.

Sounds like an interesting project...


Jamie/W0JRS

[sv2evs]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n5pvl @ Feb. 13 2003,05:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 and subsequent events have highlighted the need for more advanced, more comprehensive amateur radio emergency communications. Hams have enjoyed increased cooperation and respect from many government agencies and officials in the wake of 9-11, including a special message of praise and encouragement to U.S. amateurs from president George W. Bush.

At the same time, significant advances have been made in the equipment and software availble to digital amateur radio networkers, making it possible to build network we could only dream about in years past. Amateurs not only have a clear mandate to develop our capability to provide communications in times of emergency or disaster, but we also have the means to do so in a meaningful fashion.
Packet radio (in conjunction with other digital modes) has enormous potential to provide fast, accurate emergency/disaster communications. With the recent resurge of interest, several of our large-scale VHF/UHF networks have begun to expand and upgrade, and new packet networks are again springing up around the nation.

By building and developing independent, amateur radio network that does not depend upon standard, non-ham methods of communicating such as the Internet, amateurs arrainge to be there when they are needed the very most - when traditional methods of communication have broken down or become overloaded during the course of an emergency. Our mandate is to provide independent, alternate emergency communications and only networked amateur radio is relevant to that purpose.

Soon, we can reasonably expect to begin tying our regional networks together into a cohesive, national digital communications network, completely seperate and independent, through the participation of thousands of American hams. It is a large, ongoing task, not something we can expect to "finish", as our networks must not only grow, they must also be maintained and upgraded as we go along.

Now is the time for amateur packet radio networkers to share information, get to know each other and work together more closely than they ever have before. We will be addressing a challenge, answering to a mandate and having a good deal of fun while we are at it. It is this spirit within the hobby that USPN is here to facilitate. We dedicate our efforts to the many amateurs who participate in this fine aspect of amateur radio, and to the people of the United States of America.

Charles Brabham, #N5PVL
webmaster@uspacket.net
http://www.uspacket.net[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I only wish that this could happen in Greece also...73's de SV2EVS

[WB9YBM]

One thing that would be a great help would be a standardized frequency-for example, 146.52 MHz-- that can be used by the ham community as a universal "emergency frequency", similar to channel 9 in the C.B. community. The impediment to that is that not everyone has two meter capability: many are only on 220MHz or 440 MHz. The solution here might be similar to what Cobra (the C.B. radio manufacturer) has done with their C.B. transceivers: they have the capability to access the 162 MHz weather channels in addition to their standard C.B. frequencies, in that we could lobby radio manufacturers to add such capability to amateur gear in the form of capability to operate on an emergency frequency. Maybe even add a program to the scan function of radios to give that frequency priority preference. Personally, I don't care if we make this a two meter frequency or put it some place else, as long as it happens!
The follow-up question should be: which manufacturer is willing to give us such a radio? (Picking a frequency can happen in the background, while the chosen manufacturer designs the radio.)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WB9YBM @ Feb. 18 2003,21:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One thing that would be a great help would be a standardized frequency-for example, 146.52 MHz-- that can be used by the ham community as a universal "emergency frequency", similar to channel 9 in the C.B. community. The impediment to that is that not everyone has two meter capability: many are only on 220MHz or 440 MHz. The solution here might be similar to what Cobra (the C.B. radio manufacturer) has done with their C.B. transceivers: they have the capability to access the 162 MHz weather channels in addition to their standard C.B. frequencies, in that we could lobby radio manufacturers to add such capability to amateur gear in the form of capability to operate on an emergency frequency. Maybe even add a program to the scan function of radios to give that frequency priority preference. Personally, I don't care if we make this a two meter frequency or put it some place else, as long as it happens!
The follow-up question should be: which manufacturer is willing to give us such a radio? (Picking a frequency can happen in the background, while the chosen manufacturer designs the radio.)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The SEDAN packet network in the southeastern U.S. uses 145.770 over an eight-state region for emergency digital communications.

SEDAN stands for "Southeastern Emergency Digital Association Networks ".

SEDAN-Central (http://www.sedan-central.org/pages/451816/index.htm)

There is no national emergency packet freq that I know of, but since the SEDAN freq 145.770 MHz. is already established as a standard in a large area of the country, that might be a good one to go with. Chances are, if an official emergency packet freq is ever established, it will be 145.770 anyway. Close to one-fifth of the states use it already.

SEDAN, by the way, is the single most extensive, effective, and venerable emergency packet radio network on the planet. Other emergency networks around the country often emulate SEDAN's setup because it is simple, robust, and has proven to work when the chips are down. Part of that setup is to have a standard frequency for emergency digital communications, for the reasons you outlined. They go with 145.770.

Charles, #N5PVL
webmaster@uspacket.net
http://www.uspacket.net

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w0jrs @ Feb. 18 2003,16:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Per the bigger issue of a national focus, and incorporating some of the concerns here (high-speed unreliable IP over 802.11b, low-speed over AX.25 but limited in use, etc.), I think we could make some major progress with IPv6oAX25. Yes, AX25 is somewhat inefficient, but much of that is valuable in noisy or unreliable RF environments.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The best "bang for the buck" in AX25 systems for Amateur Packet Radio would be FlexNet, most especially for those of us who might want to run IP over AX25.

Here's the FlexNet Home Page:

http://www.afthd.tu-darmstadt.de/~flexnet/

I've put together a few "how-to" articles about FlexNet here:

N5PVL's FlexNet Notes (http://uspacket.net/flexinfo/)

My notes are a little bit out of date though... The official FlexNet web site is the best place to get the latest scoop on new versions, drivers, etc..

What FlexNet offers that other AX25 packages do not is greatly enhanced radio link performance, and advanced, intelligent networking features that are a perfect fit for what you are wanting to do.

FlexNet is used extensively in Europe, and there is a large, well organized FlexNet network in the northeastern U.S., as well.

http://www.northeastflexnet.org/

Besides being the most advanced packet network in the U.S., NorthEast FlexNet is also one the most active and fastest growing packet nets in the country. They recently updated their network maps. Check it out! There is also information on their web site about the IP routers they incorporate into the network, though you may have a different router system in mind.

I have no explanation for this, but I have noticed over the years that people running FlexNet networks appear to have more success than others at incorporating high-speed links into their network. This holds true both in Europe and here in the U.S.. Again, this is just something I have noticed. I don't have a clue as to why.

If you are going to run IP over AX25 packet, radio link performance is especially critical. Whatever radios and antennas you might use, FlexNet will wring the very best performance out of them. That, in turn, will bring you the best possible performance from your IP apps.

Check it out if you get a chance. I think that the more you look at FlexNet as an AX25 stack, the better you will like it.

Charles, #N5PVL
webmaster@uspacket.net
http://www.uspacket.net

[kf6nfw]

The drive behind me getting my license, wasnt the radio, or even in electronics, but in earth science. However, due to my are of study, I found many interesting Facts, that compeled me to get my license 6 years ago.
Now, I am finishing an Engineering degree in Electronics.
As an earlier poster had stated, that there was no need to continue with packet or digital modes for emergency communications.
I have no idea how anybody could state such, and not consider giving up their license. If there is no need or reason to further studies and science at any level, especialy one which was chosen by them, then it is also time to move on in life. I think if you cant be progressive, and at the very least be involved with the devolpments of a hobby, in which could be, (and has been in other aspects of the same hobby) a design or defining marker in how something is done.
The Experimenter is being removed from the hobby with such thinking, and should stick to cell phones, and the internet, I forgot these are product of thinkers and doer's!
73's
KF6NFW
Chris Robinson
Placer Co. Ca. ARES
CA. State Recruitment Coord.
North American Center for Emergency Communications.

[ac7ky]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n5pvl @ Feb. 17 2003,11:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You would only embarass yourself, Bill.

Remember that the discussion is about packet for emergency communications. - Your "network" dependes upon vulnerable non-ham Internet links in order to exist. Strictly speaking, it is not an "amateur packet radio network" at all. As you say, it is a bunch of small LANS connected to each other through the Internet. When the Internet access goes down, so does your "packet network".

With no Internet access, there would be no intercommunication between the WETNET LANS, and there would also be no communication with the rest of the world outside of those isolated LANS. - Not an ideal blueprint for an emergency Ham Radio communications system!

The genuine amateur packet radio networks you can see listed at USPN's "Network" page do not have this problem. In simulated - and real emergency conditions, where non-ham stuff such as the Internet is no longer available, these networks are fully functional, doing their job when it really counts the most.

WETNET would be dead in the water under those conditions, made lrrelevant by a dependence upon the very non-ham network you are supposed to be backing up.

Personally, I find it sort of repugnant blah blah blah
They use Ham Radio instead of copping out by using non-Ham stuff blah blah blah - If you dare! # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Using gateways as WETNET does, as a lazy, third-rate substitute blah blah blah
making WETNET incapable of supplying emergency backup communications. The WETNET folks took the cheap way out, and they got what they paid for etc etc.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Whoa!

I disagree with the idea that any Amateur network that utilizes Internet links would necessarily be "dead in the water" in an emergency situation.

It seems to me that most of the emergencies we are involved in are local (or rarely, regional) in nature, and we are providing communications from a crisis area to an area where normal communications (i.e. phone and Internet) are available. #

Can you think of a recent exception? #Neither can I. #So why would a system with RF links to multiple, redundant internet connections be "useless"?

Don't get me wrong, the idea of a nationwide Amateur network completely separate from the Internet is a noble goal. #But we've got a long way to go before we're there, and in the meantime we'd better also be prepared to help with more realistic scenarios.

It's pretty easy for me to see how a system like Wetnet could be quite useful in a local emergency. #It's just one more tool in our kit.

Charles, please count to ten and have a beer before you respond. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Mert Eastman AC7KY

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Charles, please count to ten and have a beer before you respond. #

Mert Eastman AC7KY [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

No need to count to ten or go out to buy beer, Mert. Your post didn't really make any points.

Your post tells us that you believe that the Internet is bulletproof, and cannot be disrupted by terrorists. That's some pretty silly stuff, Mert... Don't you read the news every once in a while?

Sorry, but I do not find your arguement that Ham Radio should be put into the back seat *by Hams* in favor of non-Ham means of communication to be persuasive, either.

Internet gateways are an important tool in our toolbox, Mert. I think most of us agree that in an emergency, packet/internet gateways are handy for providing some level of Internet access *in areas where that access no longer exists*. Your contention that we should not prepare for anything except "small, localised" problems of this nature is not persuasive, either.

Especially when ALL of your arguements are in service to the idea that Hams are somehow better off to just go ahead and use the Internet for their "Amateur Radio Communications" instead of Ham Radio. You are basically going against the whole idea of networking Amateur Packet Radio.

You haven't been persuasive about that, either, Mert. I read dozens of stories about the genuine Packet Radio networks doing their job well during emergencies and saving both property and lives. I have yet to hear of one of the "vapor" networks such as you espouse doing a damn thing. That's not to say it's never been done, of course, but it does say that it is not very common.

Care to put up your "virtual" network's record up against SEDAN's, for example?
# #
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif ----{ Don't let him talk you into it, Mert! #It's a sucker bet! }

Using a Packet/Internet gateway to extend access into a disaster area is a rational, noble use of that tool, that reflects very well upon the Amateur community.

Using that same gateway as a lazy, third-rate substitute for an actual Amateur Packet Radio network is niether rational or noble, and Mert's essential lack of support for Hams using Radio certainly does not reflect well upon the Amateur Radio community or further it's interests.

What Mert is talking about is the idea that Hams should not have an independent digital network of their own any more, instead using Packet Radio only as another form of Internet access. - Amateur Packet Radio a parasite hanging off of the Internet's butt, instead of a proud, independent digital network built by Hams.

Mert thinks he's somehow going to back up the Internet by depending upon the Internet for his vapor "network" to exist in the first place. Hmmmmm.. No, I can't say that I am persuaded about that.

But that's just me... I'm not sucked up into the "protocol wars", so I don't have to invent weird rationalizations or ignore observed reality in order to support some dubious point about excluding all but one "pet" protocol.

I just go with what is proven to work, and when I look for expertise, I look to the Hams who have accomplished something significant, something that reflects well upon Hams everywhere. Instead of being exclusive I am inclusive, embracing all that the hobby has to offer. When I open my Ham Radio "toolbox", it is full, and I'm not tempted to try to use just one of those tools to do everything. Only a fool would do that.

Packet/Internet gateways are a powerful tool, one we have grossly underutilized. - But like any tool, if you hold the wrong end of it or use it in an unwise fashion, you'll only end up hurting yourself.

Mert is stepping up to advise us to use this tool in a foolish, improper fashion, one unworthy of the hobby and of ourselves as a community of Hams. It's counterproductive, too.

There are parts of the world where what Mert is doing is illegal. It is no coincidence that those are also the parts of the world where Amateur Packet Radio is most advanced and developed.

I sincerely hope that Mert has not actually persuaded anyone here with his silly, unworthy arguements.

I've noticed that of the few who try to support Mert's "Radioless Ham Radio" and "IP only" arguements, a disproprtionate number of them tend to work for corporations or entities that would stand to benefit greatly if Hams lose spectrum. I wonder if this is also the case here?

Mert, it is true that even without the connectivity that your "network" leeches from the Internet, the remaining LANS could potentially "do something useful"... Compared to nothing at all, a pair of Hams with handy-talkies could "do something useful" too. It's a question of degree, OM...

My point is that by using Ham Radio to link your LANS so that you have an actual Amateur Packet Radio network instead of pretending to have one, your "real" network will then be much more useful than your existing "vapor" one.

Historically, you can expect it to become more useful by several orders of magnitude, and at the same time pick up a great deal more users, have more activity. - And you will no longer be in the uncomfortable position of trying to convince Hams that they are better off not using Ham Radio.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Why not go "legit" ? # Be a Ham!

Charles, #N5PVL
webmaster@uspacket.net
http://www.uspacket.net

[ac5dk]

Greetings all,

Okay, I don't normally get into the posting frays, but this one I feel I might make some useful comments...

- IP: use it if it works
- AX2.5: use it if it works
- high speed packet: use it if it works
- SSB: use it if it works
- CW: use it if it works
- Internet: use it if it works
- telephone: use it if it works

Get the point? The biggest, loudest compliment we EVER got from the state emergency management after an SET was that we used "WHATEVER means necessary at our disposal." What was referred to was that a packet link went down the morning of the SET. The one affected station was linked in via telNet (internet.) Some might have seen this as cheating, but the PEOPLE WHO MATTER did not; rather they saw it as an IMPROVEMENT! For the first time, they saw us as a flexible, get the job done organization. Sure, what if the internet would have been down during the real thing... well, what if that one part was not? (I think the WHOLE internet going down would be rare... not impossible, but rare.) The point was that we were prepared, showed that we could think on our feet and had the tools/equipment in place to improvise... THAT was more valuable for them to see than a well rehearsed "fair-weather" drill.

The biggest problem with ham e-comms is not the mode or the protocol or the method... it's the people with preconceived notions, rigid philosophies and private agendas. Emergency communciations is not done for the sake of hams, it's done at the request, behest and in response to the needs of a SERVED AGENCY. If that's true then the real objective should be to determine the needs of any served agency and build a network/method/mode to SERVE THAT NEED. If they need severe weather reports, put in a linked repeater system... packet is too slow, has lag and makes asking questions difficult. If they need to send in 4-8k written (typed) reports, then build them an AX25 1200 buad packet network. If they need to track field units in a small locale, install APRS trackers and digi's for them. If they need to supplement out of area phone calls from other agencies, then install VoIP stations in neighboring areas that might still have internet... or just install phone patches, whatever.

My point is that folks need to quit bickering, being afraid and get down to business. Stop being selfish! I am no longer a member of the ARES/RACES in my state, but I still offer my services at maintaining the packet network. I had to quit for personal reasons, but one of the greatest frustrations I suffered was the lack of understanding and the selfish motivations of many, especially the section leadership. One example: Some wanted to use PSK31 for e-comms... why?!!! Yes, it's the latest hip, cool, neat thing and everyone wants to play with it, but does it serve the need? NO. It's slow (31 baud) and people can talk faster.... it cannot be relayed, so voice on FM can go further... on HF, CW and SSB do not require specialzed equipment... it requires attended operation on both ends and is NOT error correcting, so it has no advantages over packet. So what was their point... it's cool to play with. THEN GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!!! This is self serving and not in the best interest of the served agency. I could site other examples of both a political and technical nature of personal agendas being forwarded but where the needs of the served agencies would be sacrificed.

If an emergency organization and/or network exists to merely serve it's own existance then it's time for a change or maybe for it to just go away. And by being "afraid" I refer to those individuals that put down other modes because they see the promotion of another mode that they know little about as something that will lead to their usefulness being abolished. BALDERDASH! They are reacting to others who are being equally wrong by promoting their favorite mode as God's gift to e-comm.... I have NEVER and will NEVER promote packet as the be-all, do-all of e-comms. It is ONE tool. It might even serve a LOT of the served agency needs, but it can't serve them all... and it never will. The reason you hear so much about it, is because data communciations is in demand by served agencies these days with their growing dependence on e-mail and such; yet it is seriously lacking in ham communications. Simply put, we do the voice thing well, and most are happy; now they are asking for digital comms and we should endeavour to provide... NOT harp, gripe, whine, defend, debate or opportunize... Get out there and do what you can, and if you can't, then help by supporting someone who can.

I'm sorry if I sound harsh, as maybe I'm venting a few things here, but simply put I've towed the party line in my section for far too long. They "allowed" me to put the network together and many helped, but I felt that the leadership both had an attitude of "gee, he's just doing this so he can play around" and "go ahead, I don't care if it does work, I'M not playing with it." Frankly, my HF logs are dusty and my CW key misses me. The sats call out to have me on for a QSO and my QSL bins are entirely too empty. I HAVE enjoyed building the networks, but I didn't do it for me... and even if it needed to go in a direction that I didn't want to go, I did it to serve the requests being made... can you say the same? It just makes me sick, that I and others seemed to have gone to a whole lot of trouble to build a viable network, yet the so-called "emergency coordinators" won't get on and use it. Instead, it's a small handful of gurus, old-timers and first timers... not the people who COULD be using it to serve the needs of the very agencies ASKING FOR IT!

You might love TCP/IP, but will you help build an AX25 network if it serves the immediate need? You may dislike computers, but will you integrate yourself with a packet network to seamlessly deliver messages? Some of our best voice ops here see packet as taking the burden off them so that they are free to send the urgent, immediate delivery messages and saving their voices by sending the long detailed lists and such. We have a simple protocol to triage which route to take: "If it needs to get there now and is simple/easy to say, then voice; if it's long/complicated and you wish you could shove the paper through the radio, then packet."

It's all about getting the job done... are you willing to do that? Even if it means the spotlight will not be on your favorite mode? No, then GET OUT of e-comms... you are not wanted, needed, or tolerated. No served agency will put up with bickering and selfish infighting for long. You will quickly be an organization unto yourselves and be of no useful purpose. Furthermore you will be occupying the place of individuals who WOULD be willing to do the job right. BUT, if you are willing to do what it takes, then get together with other like minded individuals and get yourselves and your equipment prepared to be there WHEN and IF called upon. Stop with the notion that ARES & RACES exist to give you something to do... We used to have a saying about people like that when I worked in EMS some years back; those kind of individuals think people have heart attacks and car wrecks just so they can prove their manhood... Do you get my point?


Well, soapbox aside, is regular old ax25 packet wanted by served agencies? Yes. In Arkansas, the state health department is analyzing using (and seriously assisting the furthering of) the Arkansas Packet Network to link up all of the state's hospitals. We can do what no linked repeater system can do and in a place where HF cannot be installed because of RFI problems. And since a great many of the rural hospitals here do not even HAVE Internet, they don't care how fast or if we are purely RF, etc. (By the way, yes all links are RF, but we have the capability of hooking to internet, IF NEEDED.) They have been given a sizeable grant to improve hospital bioterrorism readiness... and at the top of their needs list: communications - both in-hospital and hospital-to-hospital. To sum up the question of "is packet what they really want" for hospital to hospital communciations... I refer to a conversation between a DEC and a health department official not yet familiar with the intracacies of ham radio and packet. The official asked the DEC a question, "SO is this packet thing capable of sending text messages? Say, even up to 2-3 pages long?" The DEC suppressed a big belly laugh and merely grinned out the reply, "That's exactly what it was designed for, sir...."

Enough said. Thanks for reading. Address all flames to your bathroom mirror, as I'm not interested and they'll do me no good, but might help you.


73 all,

Kevin Manzer, AC5DK
APN Network Administrator
http://www.qsl.net/ac5dk/packet

[ac7ky]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n5pvl @ Feb. 20 2003,08:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Have a beer with me, Charles. #I think you'll see that I agree with 99% of what you say.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Your post tells us that you believe that the Internet is bulletproof, and cannot be disrupted by terrorists. That's some pretty silly stuff, Mert... Don't you read the news every once in a while?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, not bulletproof, but I find the possibility of a total, nationwide Internet failure very remote (not impossible, mind you.) #Due to the redundancy built into the Internet (multiple backbones, multiple carriers, dynamic routing around outages, etc.) I find it more likely that outages will be local in nature. #Nothing is foolproof, however! #But if it's there, it should be another tool that we should be prepared to use.

Meanwhile, we should be building this kind of redundancy into our amateur radio networks. #We should not rely on the Internet, but we should be prepared to use it as an additional data pathway if it is available. #And if it isn't, we should have an alternative. #This is what I'm trying to say.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Internet gateways are an important tool in our toolbox, Mert. I think most of us agree that in an emergency, packet/internet gateways are handy for providing some level of Internet access *in areas where that access no longer exists*. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Great! #Let's just use them once in awhile to make sure they still work, and to make sure they are capable of handling the load they might face in an emergency situation.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Your contention that we should not prepare for anything except "small, localised" problems of this nature is not persuasive, either.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That's good, because it's not what I'm saying. #We should be prepared for both big and small problems.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Especially when ALL of your arguements are in service to the idea that Hams are somehow better off to just go ahead and use the Internet for their "Amateur Radio Communications" instead of Ham Radio. You are basically going against the whole idea of networking Amateur Packet Radio. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I looked over my posting again and I can't see where I said that. #That is not what I believe. #I just think we should use all the tools at our disposal. #The Internet and Internet gateways are useful tools... you said so yourself.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I read dozens of stories about the genuine Packet Radio networks doing their job well during emergencies and saving both property and lives. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Exactly... the important thing not being that they are "genuine", but that they are effective. #This is the bottom line.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Using a Packet/Internet gateway to extend access into a disaster area is a rational, noble use of that tool, that reflects very well upon the Amateur community.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
See? #We agree!

But here is where the beer and counting to ten come in:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Using that same gateway as a lazy, third-rate substitute for an actual Amateur Packet Radio network is niether rational or noble, and Mert's essential lack of support for Hams using Radio certainly does not reflect well upon the Amateur Radio community or further it's interests.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm confused. #How does developing expertise setting up gateways for emergency use equal lack of support for Ham Radio? #Can you explain this for me?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What Mert is talking about is the idea that Hams should not have an independent digital network of their own any more, instead using Packet Radio only as another form of Internet access. - Amateur Packet Radio a parasite hanging off of the Internet's butt, instead of a proud, independent digital network built by Hams. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>Funny, I thought I said the exact opposite.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not sucked up into the "protocol wars", so I don't have to invent weird rationalizations or ignore observed reality in order to support some dubious point about excluding all but one "pet" protocol.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hmmm.... I read over my post again and can't see where I said anything of the sort. #Can you help me here?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I just go with what is proven to work, and when I look for expertise, I look to the Hams who have accomplished something significant, something that reflects well upon Hams everywhere. Instead of being exclusive I am inclusive, embracing all that the hobby has to offer. When I open my Ham Radio "toolbox", it is full, and I'm not tempted to try to use just one of those tools to do everything. Only a fool would do that.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
See? #We agree! #This is exactly what I was trying to say.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Packet/Internet gateways are a powerful tool, one we have grossly underutilized. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
See? We agree! #

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mert is stepping up to advise us to use this tool in a foolish, improper fashion, one unworthy of the hobby and of ourselves as a community of Hams. It's counterproductive, too. [...] #I sincerely hope that Mert has not actually persuaded anyone here with his silly, unworthy arguements.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Me too! #There is obviously something wrong with the Internet... my post is saying things that I never wrote...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've noticed that of the few who try to support Mert's "Radioless Ham Radio" and "IP only" arguements,[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Huh? #What arguments? #Where? #

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">a disproprtionate number of them tend to work for corporations or entities that would stand to benefit greatly if Hams lose spectrum. I wonder if this is also the case here?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Actually, I work as a meat cutter for a grocery store.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mert, it is true that even without the connectivity that your "network" leeches from the Internet, the remaining LANS could potentially "do something useful"... Compared to nothing at all, a pair of Hams with handy-talkies could "do something useful" too. It's a question of degree, OM...

My point is that by using Ham Radio to link your LANS so that you have an actual Amateur Packet Radio network instead of pretending to have one, your "real" network will then be much more useful than your existing "vapor" one. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
See? #We agree! #More redundancy = better.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Historically, you can expect it to become more useful by several orders of magnitude, and at the same time pick up a great deal more users, have more activity. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>... and develop a pool of people knowledgeable in networking that will be available in an emergency...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And you will no longer be in the uncomfortable position of trying to convince Hams that they are better off not using Ham Radio.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>Boy, never realized I said that. #I feel better already!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why not go "legit" ? # Be a Ham![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>I am a ham. #Ham I am. #Let's go build a radio LAN!

73,
Mert Eastman AC7KY

[nm4m]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YKY @ Feb. 15 2003,05:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are well established nets that already can handle emergency/disaster traffic....as well of plenty of individuals. Such traffic is handled just fine with the reliable, standard conventional modes, ssb and cw. In a disaster/emergency situation, no need or reason to play with packets, computers, etc.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That is not always acceptable. #Should the list of victims at an "event", be it nuclear, biological, or natrual, be read out over the air in a traffic net where anyone with a scanner can hear it can "publish" the names before next of kin are notified? #If this list of names is 200 names long, including address and next of kin, is all this going to be sent over a CW net? #No. #Packet is well positioned to send large amounts of information, accurately.

Dave Wilburn
K4DGW
http://www.qsl.net/k4dgw

Kevin was mentioning resistance from the AREAS leadership in his area to utilizing Packet, despite the fact that digital emergency communications are now in high demand.

I think of this as the "not invented here" syndrome. Most ARES people have been working with voice repeaters and HF for decades, and the experienced ones who end up being in charge are the ones least likely to really be interested in incorporating new digital capabilities that they do not understand or trust. To them, "digital" starts and ends with the venerable CW traffic nets.

Partly there is the fear that the people they have enjoyed working with for years will be rudely supplanted and made irrelevant after years of dedicated service, when those hot-snot Packet people come in and take over. They hear about how much faster and more accurate Packet is, and they can't help "hearing" this as a slight against of the speed and accuracy of the voice and CW people they know and trust. Loyalty comes into play.

I'm not claiming that this is rational, but I will put it forward as being ordinary and common human nature.

I've seen this in Packet for years, in the "protocol wars". Somebody could talk about having good results with software "A", and immediately come under hostile attack from users of software "B" and/or "C"!

It's interesting to go back and look at those exchanges. One common theme is a misconception that is really pretty silly, when you think about it... They all acted as if anyone was ever allowed to use "A" in peace, it was somehow going to prevent Hams from using their pet "B" and/or "C" software. They behaved almost like someone under a physical threat.

Again, I won't claim that this is rational, but I will put it forward as being ordinary and common human nature.

This exclusive, paranoid view of other Hams who use different software reached its pinnacle of ridiculousness with the amateur tcpip community during the last decade or so, and they still hold that record to this day with their exclusive, anti-Ham "IP only" paradigm.

A rational person would know right away that excluding most other hams by insisting upon using only one "pet" protocol and not cooperating with anyone who does otherwise would be both stupid and counterproductive, but I won't claim that this is rational.. # I won't even put it forward as being ordinary and common human nature! It falls short of that mark. It's the inevitable result of the "not invented here" syndrome, when it gets waaaaay out of hand.

It's basically the same problem Kevin is facing with the luddite ARES section managers. The "IP only" goons are essentially luddites as well, though they would never think of themselves that way.

In an Article (http://www.uspacket.net/l_ecom01.htm) I recently wrote about digital E-comms, I put the system forward as being something that could free up ARES Hams with HT's from having to babysit the local hospital and sherriffs' office so that more of them could get out where the action is, in the field. The system was put forward as something that would expand the capabilities of an ARES group that was struggling to get by without enough volunteers, or on a funding "shoestring"...

Rather than stir them up with fear of being replaced, I suggested that this new digital system I was introducing was a handy new convenience intended to enhance what they were already doing, not something to replace it.

Anybody with good sense knows that no one system, be it digital or voice, is going to be able to handle all of our communications needs as well as a mixture of the available resources will do. It's also kind of a "no-brainer" that if you utilize several different aspects of Ham Radio in your E-comms setup, you will naturally attract many more volunteers. - But not everybody has good sense in this area, human nature being as it is, so sometimes you just have to approach them a little differently.

If they get the impression that you are trying to say they are obsolete or irrelevant they will shy away, and unfortunately this unwise approach has already been used on many of them by digital enthusiasts over the years, so they are wary.

So talk about freeing up valuable and scarce ARES volunteers with FM voice rigs so there can be more of them in the field, and talk about how, as section managers, some of the kudos earned by the new Packet system will surely filter up to them, but *never* suggest that your system is "better" then what they presently use, or that their old CW/voice friends from down the years are irrelevant. It is painfully easy to give them that false impression.

Charles, #N5PVL
webmaster@uspacket.net
http://www.uspacket.net

[w0jrs]

No, not bulletproof, but I find the possibility of a total, nationwide Internet failure very remote

Actually, network failure is more of a "when" rather than an if.

Dealing with this as my day job, you'd be surprised at what a new worm can do, for instance. A month or so ago, we lost half of the root nameservers - while traffic was getting thru, the loss of these databases represented a significant threat (and the remaining ones were struggling under the load).

(multiple backbones, multiple carriers, dynamic routing around outages, etc.)

Sounds nice like that, but that's not how the Internet works. If you're connected to Cox, for instance, and AT&T has a bad day, it doesn't matter if Sprint and Worldcom are doing well. It's not that pretty diagram of a big redundant cloud.

On other matters...

This has been an interesting but somewhat disappointing thread. I can see where there are problems. APRS has grown due to an acceptance of the protocol, in spite of its application-centric model and limitations (someone said APRS isn't a kludge protocol, it's a pile of kludge protocols duct-taped together).

We've had everything on the thread from those who don't believe in digital modes, those who do but want to use the Internet, those who refuse to use the Internet, those who want to stick to ancient and poorly routed protocols (and nonroutable on a larger scheme), etc.

It almost takes a killer app to get a protocol moving - very few committees in amateur radio have a chance of convincing anyone of anything.

So for those of you actually doing something, keep at it - and don't limit your packet network to a specific use. Keep it open, incorporate available standards whenever possible, and don't reinvent the wheel! Perhaps we can borrow from the open source model and achieve some success.

Jamie/W0JRS

[KD7KOY]

Just reading this thread, everyone has a different idea how it is to be done, what mode, who is in charge..what subagency or club is doing what..etc..etc..etc..
I'm confused already and no one has sent a signal.. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Seems to me..(And I'm no "expert".), but use a proven system that is easy to use, cheap, easy to fix in the field and can be used with a car battery (12 volt)..
You won't have time to be messing around looking for software, hardware and trying to figure what to do or how to use it or work out the "bugs"...
You would want to be independent of any "utility"..i.e. telephone, cable etc..in case they get waxed..
Seems packet would be the choice..for digital. You can set that up in the backseat of a car if you have to. Lots of TNC's out there for cheap. And it's a proven performer and independent of everything except an antenna.
The main problem I see is no one can agree on anything...not a mode per se.
But like I said..I'm not an expert..

(I think I'll monitor the confusion from a safe distance and have a sandwich..)

[w0jrs]

KD7KOY writes:
Seems to me..use a proven system that is easy to use, cheap, easy to fix in the field and can be used with a car battery (12 volt)

Which is a really good point. One of the things I hate about packet and IP today (on any open system) is that it takes forever to get an installation going. It requires:

- install Linux, including kernel packages
- build and install a new kernel
- load all the ax25 packages
- fix all the ax25 packages (!!! missing libs / libs pointing to wrong reference / etc.)
- let ax25 developer know of fixes
- dink around configuring ax25 and get it running
- build IP services on top

At the same time at work, we have an internally developed mesh system that loads on a compactflash. I'd love to see a Linux/ax25/IP package on a flash or DiskOnChip, or DiskOnModule - similar to what LEAF (http://leaf.sourceforge.net/) does.

Such a package would aid the expansion of remote digis, reduce packet implementation costs (and time), etc. But unless its just me, I don't see anyone pursuing it. Any ideas?

Jamie/W0JRS

You can bypass most of that complexity and also realize better performance by obtaining an old 386-486 DOS box and run FlexNet in it to handle all of the AX25 stuff as well as interfacing with the TNC, soundcard, or modem.

Put all the radios on the FlexNet box, and set up a port in FlexNet so you can shoot IP into it from your Linux box via ethernet. I believe that by using the right drivers, it would be possible then to skip the laborious and complicated AX25 setup in Linux. You can also link via a fulldup serial link and get respectable throughput, but still nothing like ethernet of course.

You can almost certainly find a driver for both your computer link and your equipment among these, to suit your purposes:

PC/Flexnet - Available Modules
Name Description Author
PCF.LZH If you're planning to use PC/FlexNet you will need at least this one, and one of the Hardware drivers. It contains the Kernel and all utilities that are needed for configuring and diagnostics. #Gunter Jost, (D)K7WJ
FLEX95.LZH Windows95 Add On Package, see documentation for details. Gunter Jost, (D)K7WJ
SER12.LZH BayCom 1200 Baud modem driver, see manual page for details. #Gunter Jost, (D)K7WJ
PAR96.LZH BayCom 9600 Baud modem driver, see manual page for details. Gunter Jost, (D)K7WJ
6PACK.LZH 6PACK TNC2 driver, see manual page for details. Gunter Jost, (D)K7WJ #
Matthias Welwarsky, DG2FEF/KC5RFB
KISS.LZH KISS driver, see manual page for details. Gunter Jost, (D)K7WJ
USCC.LZH This driver can be used with all variants of the BayCom SCC Card. The type of the card will be detected automagically. #Florian Radlherr, DL8MBT Gunter Jost, (D)K7WJ
EPP.LZH Driver for the highspeed Enhanced Parallel Port (EPP) Adapter from BayCom; for further details see the information there. Gunter Jost, (D)K7WJ
YAMSER16.LZH FlexNet driver (new Version 1.6) for Nico Palermo's (IV3NWV) YAM modem #Juergen Hasch, DG1SCR
XSCC.ZIP This driver is still Beta-test software. The supported SCC cards are: #
- D.D.S. Electronics/PA0HZP #
# Opto (E)SCC card #
- PE1PET SCC card #
- DRSI card #
- BayCom DIGI SCC card #
- BayCom USCC card (only 2 and 4 port). #
See documentation that is contained in the archive file. Henk de Groot, PE1DNN
ETHERNET.LZH This is a collection of drivers to connect computers running PC/FlexNet or G8BPQ via an Ethernet LAN. Currently this package contains the following drivers: #
IPX/FlexNet Protocol via PacketDriver
IPX/FlexNet Protocol on top of Novell
G8BPQ Protocol via PacketDriver
NOTE: NOT FOR USE WITH WINDOWS95 Gunter Jost, (D)K7WJ
ETHER32.LZH WinSock network driver (AXIP/IPX for Windows95), see manual page for details. Gunter Jost, (D)K7WJ
IPPD.LZH AXIP encapsulation driver, see manual page for details. New Version! #
NOTE: NOT FOR USE WITH WINDOWS95 Thomas Sailer, HB9JNX/AE4WA
SM.LZH Soundcard Modem driver, see manual page for details. Thomas Sailer, HB9JNX/AE4WA
PSADRVR.LZH Driver for PSA DSP Soundcard, see manual page for details. Thomas Sailer, HB9JNX/AE4WA
AXPDDRVR.LZH AX25 packet driver emulator, see manual page for details. Thomas Sailer, HB9JNX/AE4WA
DG1SCR.LZH Driver for DG1SCR DSP board, see manual page for details. Thomas Sailer, HB9JNX/AE4WA
DSKC26.LZH Driver for TI DSP Starter Kit, see manual page for details. Thomas Sailer, HB9JNX/AE4WA
DSKC50.LZH Driver for TI DSP Starter Kit, see manual page for details. Thomas Sailer, HB9JNX/AE4WA
EZKIT.LZH Driver for AD EZ-Kit, see manual page for details. Thomas Sailer, HB9JNX/AE4WA

Setting up FlexNet is a brief, easy task involving writing up a batch file that call the modules in the proper order, and set the basic parameters. (Callsign, baudrate, TXDELAY ) All other AX25 TNC parameters are handled automatically by FlexNet. That simplifies things considerably, right there!

It's not a Linux-only solution, but it is a lot easier to set up and the FlexNet AX25 stack will outperform the Linux AX25 package on the air where it really counts.

Most Eurpoean IP'ers use this dual OS setup in preference over a single computer solution utilizing a single platform. The reason they do it is for the increased performance, but it would also serve your interest in a simple to set up package.

The DOS FlexNet setup will immedately get you on the air with AX25 packet, and the addition of an ethernet link to your Linux box will get you on the air with your favorite flavor of IP. FlexNet is supposed to be more "transparent" than other AX25 packages for IP. The FlexNet motto is "We Route Everything".

The story I get from both European and American Hams is that it simply works better and that's why it has become so popular, sorry not to have more detail.

Charles, #N5PVL
webmaster@uspacket.net
http://www.uspacket.net

[KD7KOY]

W0JRS and all...
Well I for one..would very much like to have a system as you discribed.
Cheap, easy to put together and nothing depended on except an antenna, radio and a puter. Can set up anywhere; house, office or in the field.
I think one has to remember, that the system, if it is going to be geared for "emergency", has to be able to be set up anywhere, under any power (or lack of..) conditions..and be flexiable enough to fix with little or no support. Yet easy to operate for inexperienced operators who may be called into service who have little or no experience but can be trained quickly on it.
I would like to hear more on this..

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD7KOY @ Feb. 23 2003,23:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">W0JRS and all...
# Well I for one..would very much like to have a system as you discribed.
# Cheap, easy to put together and nothing depended on except an antenna, radio and a puter. Can set up anywhere; house, office or in the field.
# #I think one has to remember, that the system, if it is going to be geared for "emergency", has to be able to be set up anywhere, under any power (or lack of..) conditions..and be flexiable enough to fix with little or no support. Yet easy to operate for inexperienced operators who may be called into service who have little or no experience but can be trained quickly on it.
# #I would like to hear more on this..[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There is a good deal of information about packet networking at http://www.uspacket.net, including a link to an online Packet tutorial.

On the NETWORK page, you can go to web pages associayed with Packet nets around the U.S., and see the different kinds of networks that have been built.

Another great web-site asssociated with Packet is http://www.packetradio.com, where there is a wealth of hook-up information for many radios and TNC's. There is also a good networking tutorial there.

If you'd like to join in discussion about Packet Radio, US Packet.Net has a Forum, and several E-Mail lists. Join in!

There is also some good reading about Packet in USPN's LIBRARY page, much of it unique to USPN.

Charles, #N5PVL
webmaster@uspacket.net
http://www.uspacket.net

[w0jrs]

W0JRS and all... Well I for one..would very much like to have a system as you discribed.

Me too! :-)

I'm working with an embedded debian build that goes to compactflash for a RF project at work. Hopefully I'll have some time this next year to work on an ax25 implementation - getting everything under 8 MB is rather interesting but also time consuming!

I'll be sure to post here on qrz.com if/when I make some progress...

Jamie/W0JRS