Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Linking vs. Source Routing

Expand Messages
  • Nate Duehr
    ... Quite a bit. Source routing is a one-shot route... you key up and the system routes that single transmission to the person s last known location. You get
    Message 1 of 21 , Apr 7 3:52 PM
      On 4/7/2010 4:40 PM, Nicholas wrote:
       

      I may be asking a question that has already been answered. What is the difference between Linking (UR: KJ4MMCCL) and Source Routing (UR: /KJ4OXTC)? This is something I have yet to figure out.

      Thank you and 73s,
      Nick KF4SEK
      Cocoa, FL

      Quite a bit. 

      Source routing is a one-shot route... you key up and the system routes that single transmission to the person's last known location.  You get confirmation that it routed all the way to the far end gateway server, back in your radio. "UR" vs. "RPT" displayed after each transmission.  It's the "original" Icom design.  It's also the only way to talk across Trust Server networks to the Japanese system.  They do not have... (see below...)...

      Linking is provided to D-STAR on the U.S. Trust Server network by the D-PLUS add-on software, and isn't built-in by default to Icom's Gateway software.  Once you issue the command, you and everyone else (you switch back to "CQCQCQ" for your UR field after this type of "hard" link is established between two repeater modules, or a repeater module and a reflector channel) who talks on the local frequency is heard at the far end until the link is terminated.  You get no confirmation that your transmission was transmitted end to end, but it's the only GOOD way to do point to multipoint linking.

      Icom DID provide a system that allows for Source Routing point to multipoint, called "Multicast" (not to be confused with IP network Multicast, which is a different thing altogether).  It requires that all of the participating Gateway operators set up a specific fake "callsign" that all users "route" to, and every Gateway must be both programmed to send that callsign's traffic to all other repeaters in the group, and also must have enough bandwidth at the repeater site to send that many streams... each repeater in the multicast list gets its own stream.  Haven't really played with this one, but in practice, the bandwidth and other limitations make it pretty "wimpy" compared to nice high-bandwidth Reflector server and D-PLUS.

      In practice, both work pretty well, but for calling CQ and general rag-chews, D-PLUS linked to a Reflector is probably the easiest way to do that.  Direct Source Routing works best for finding an individual... or perhaps routing to your own radio at home when doing something mobile with low-speed data (as long as you have two Terminals registered, and the rig's "Your Call:" is programmed appropriately so the system sees them as two completely different end-points... especially if you don't know where they are, and they don't bounce around repeaters too much.  (Source Routes are only updated slowly in the national database, so "chasing" someone from repeater to repeater using only their callsign, usually doesn't work too well.  They're based on the last repeater module the person keyed up on...  Example... if I fly from Denver to Hawaii, and key up there... you source routing to me would still work if I made sure to key up 5-10 minutes before your call in Hawaii...)

      Hope that helps...

      Nate WY0X


    • Tony Langdon
      ... Linking uses the DPlus addon. It behaves (in concept) like IRLP and Echolink, in that a virtual connection is established between the endpoints, anyone
      Message 2 of 21 , Apr 7 3:53 PM
        At 08:40 AM 4/8/2010, you wrote:
        >I may be asking a question that has already been answered. What is
        >the difference between Linking (UR: KJ4MMCCL) and Source Routing
        >(UR: /KJ4OXTC)? This is something I have yet to figure out.

        Linking uses the DPlus addon. It behaves (in concept) like IRLP and
        Echolink, in that a virtual connection is established between the
        endpoints, anyone within range can be heard (assuming they have the
        correct RPT1 and RPT2 settings in their radio for the local gateway
        to notice them).

        Routing works differently. Firstly, only your traffic will go to the
        destination you're routing to. If other local users want to talk to
        the same station, they have to set their routing the same as you. At
        the far end, the recipient needs to have a reverse route point to you
        for them to be able to communicate back to you. This is (usually)
        easily achieved by using the radio's one touch reply button, which
        reads the incoming data stream and programs your radio accordingly.

        Routing also has another neat trick. Know a D-STAR user, but don't
        know how to find them? Simply use their call as the UR callsign, and
        unless they've recently switched gateways, your call will arrive
        where they were last heard.

        In my experience, I find routing is great for one on one QSOs,
        especially when you aren't sure where the other person is. Linking
        is usually the best choice for roundtables and nets, especially when
        there's multiple gateways involved, because linking supports
        reflectors. The support built in for routing to support such
        activity is clunky and requires administrator intervention to setup.

        Unfortunately, a lot of D-STAR users never get to learn routing
        properly, and they're missing out on some neat features.

        73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
        http://vkradio.com
      • Nicholas
        ... the ... across ... (see ... Gateway ... switch ... far ... all ... callsign ... to ... and ... high-bandwidth ... individual... ... mobile ... if ...
        Message 3 of 21 , Apr 7 4:20 PM
          --- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, Nate Duehr <nate@...> wrote:
          >
          > On 4/7/2010 4:40 PM, Nicholas wrote:
          > >
          > > I may be asking a question that has already been answered. What is
          the
          > > difference between Linking (UR: KJ4MMCCL) and Source Routing (UR:
          > > /KJ4OXTC)? This is something I have yet to figure out.
          > >
          > > Thank you and 73s,
          > > Nick KF4SEK
          > > Cocoa, FL
          > >
          > Quite a bit.
          >
          > Source routing is a one-shot route... you key up and the system routes
          > that single transmission to the person's last known location. You get
          > confirmation that it routed all the way to the far end gateway server,
          > back in your radio. "UR" vs. "RPT" displayed after each transmission.
          > It's the "original" Icom design. It's also the only way to talk
          across
          > Trust Server networks to the Japanese system. They do not have...
          (see
          > below...)...
          >
          > Linking is provided to D-STAR on the U.S. Trust Server network by the
          > D-PLUS add-on software, and isn't built-in by default to Icom's
          Gateway
          > software. Once you issue the command, you and everyone else (you
          switch
          > back to "CQCQCQ" for your UR field after this type of "hard" link is
          > established between two repeater modules, or a repeater module and a
          > reflector channel) who talks on the local frequency is heard at the
          far
          > end until the link is terminated. You get no confirmation that your
          > transmission was transmitted end to end, but it's the only GOOD way to
          > do point to multipoint linking.
          >
          > Icom DID provide a system that allows for Source Routing point to
          > multipoint, called "Multicast" (not to be confused with IP network
          > Multicast, which is a different thing altogether). It requires that
          all
          > of the participating Gateway operators set up a specific fake
          "callsign"
          > that all users "route" to, and every Gateway must be both programmed
          to
          > send that callsign's traffic to all other repeaters in the group, and
          > also must have enough bandwidth at the repeater site to send that many
          > streams... each repeater in the multicast list gets its own stream.
          > Haven't really played with this one, but in practice, the bandwidth
          and
          > other limitations make it pretty "wimpy" compared to nice
          high-bandwidth
          > Reflector server and D-PLUS.
          >
          > In practice, both work pretty well, but for calling CQ and general
          > rag-chews, D-PLUS linked to a Reflector is probably the easiest way to
          > do that. Direct Source Routing works best for finding an
          individual...
          > or perhaps routing to your own radio at home when doing something
          mobile
          > with low-speed data (as long as you have two Terminals registered, and
          > the rig's "Your Call:" is programmed appropriately so the system sees
          > them as two completely different end-points... especially if you don't
          > know where they are, and they don't bounce around repeaters too much.
          > (Source Routes are only updated slowly in the national database, so
          > "chasing" someone from repeater to repeater using only their callsign,
          > usually doesn't work too well. They're based on the last repeater
          > module the person keyed up on... Example... if I fly from Denver to
          > Hawaii, and key up there... you source routing to me would still work
          if
          > I made sure to key up 5-10 minutes before your call in Hawaii...)
          >
          > Hope that helps...
          >
          > Nate WY0X
          >

          Nate,

          Thank you for clearing it up for me. It is perfectly clear now.

          73s,
          Nick KF4SEK
        • Nicholas
          ... Thank you, also, for the helpful information. I understand perfectly now. 73s, Nick KF4SEK
          Message 4 of 21 , Apr 7 4:24 PM
            --- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, Tony Langdon <vk3jed@...> wrote:
            >
            > At 08:40 AM 4/8/2010, you wrote:
            > >I may be asking a question that has already been answered. What is
            > >the difference between Linking (UR: KJ4MMCCL) and Source Routing
            > >(UR: /KJ4OXTC)? This is something I have yet to figure out.
            >
            > Linking uses the DPlus addon. It behaves (in concept) like IRLP and
            > Echolink, in that a virtual connection is established between the
            > endpoints, anyone within range can be heard (assuming they have the
            > correct RPT1 and RPT2 settings in their radio for the local gateway
            > to notice them).
            >
            > Routing works differently. Firstly, only your traffic will go to the
            > destination you're routing to. If other local users want to talk to
            > the same station, they have to set their routing the same as you. At
            > the far end, the recipient needs to have a reverse route point to you
            > for them to be able to communicate back to you. This is (usually)
            > easily achieved by using the radio's one touch reply button, which
            > reads the incoming data stream and programs your radio accordingly.
            >
            > Routing also has another neat trick. Know a D-STAR user, but don't
            > know how to find them? Simply use their call as the UR callsign, and
            > unless they've recently switched gateways, your call will arrive
            > where they were last heard.
            >
            > In my experience, I find routing is great for one on one QSOs,
            > especially when you aren't sure where the other person is. Linking
            > is usually the best choice for roundtables and nets, especially when
            > there's multiple gateways involved, because linking supports
            > reflectors. The support built in for routing to support such
            > activity is clunky and requires administrator intervention to setup.
            >
            > Unfortunately, a lot of D-STAR users never get to learn routing
            > properly, and they're missing out on some neat features.
            >
            > 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
            > http://vkradio.com
            >

            Thank you, also, for the helpful information. I understand perfectly
            now.

            73s,
            Nick KF4SEK
          • ki4umx
            ... Hi Nick, I see several have answered the technical side of your question, so I ll limit myself to why I WOULD NOT use source routing except in emergencies.
            Message 5 of 21 , Apr 7 4:54 PM
              --- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, "Nicholas" <ngray79@...> wrote:
              >
              > I may be asking a question that has already been answered. What is the difference between Linking (UR: KJ4MMCCL) and Source Routing (UR: /KJ4OXTC)? This is something I have yet to figure out.
              >
              > Thank you and 73s,
              > Nick KF4SEK
              > Cocoa, FL
              >
              Hi Nick,

              I see several have answered the technical side of your question, so I'll limit myself to why I WOULD NOT use source routing except in emergencies.

              With source routing, you have no idea what is going on at the target repeater, and you stand the chance of BLASTING into a QSO or net that is going on. I've heard this more than once! If the target repeater is "linked" at the time, you would BLAST into ALL linked repeaters! Multicast is just as bad - on more than one occasion I have heard 1/2 of a QSO coming over Reflector 1C because one of the Hams was using Multicast (probably forgot to turn it off) and the other was not. The worst part - they probably weren't even talking on the repeater that was linked to 1C, but a repeater that was part of the Multicast Programming WAS linked to 1C.

              73
              Hank-KI4UMX
            • Nate Duehr
              ... This is more a sign of really poor integration of the regular features vs. the add-on features, than anything. If the two were aware of each other in
              Message 6 of 21 , Apr 8 12:59 PM
                On Apr 7, 2010, at 5:54 PM, ki4umx wrote:

                > Hi Nick,
                >
                > I see several have answered the technical side of your question, so I'll limit myself to why I WOULD NOT use source routing except in emergencies.
                >
                > With source routing, you have no idea what is going on at the target repeater, and you stand the chance of BLASTING into a QSO or net that is going on. I've heard this more than once! If the target repeater is "linked" at the time, you would BLAST into ALL linked repeaters! Multicast is just as bad - on more than one occasion I have heard 1/2 of a QSO coming over Reflector 1C because one of the Hams was using Multicast (probably forgot to turn it off) and the other was not. The worst part - they probably weren't even talking on the repeater that was linked to 1C, but a repeater that was part of the Multicast Programming WAS linked to 1C.
                >
                > 73
                > Hank-KI4UMX

                This is more a sign of really poor integration of the regular features vs. the add-on features, than anything. If the two were "aware" of each other in any way, a message could be sent back to the user who is "barging" in saying the remote system is linked somewhere.

                Easy to fix, if Icom were really interested. They're not. And D-PLUS can't do it all "alone" so to speak. It would require a new release of Gateway software that had been built with linking in mind.

                As it stands today, two things must happen...
                1. Users MUST be aware of what they're putting in the fields, and transmitting. While no one's perfect, putting a standard "CQCQCQ" route for your local GW into the memory channel and making sure you bump OFF of it and then back on, before transmitting locally (or through a D-PLUS link) is the best practice. All the current Icom rigs reset the four callsign fields anytime you tune to a new memory channel.

                2. ANNOUNCE what you're doing. There's absolutely no reason to go so far as to AVOID callsign routing. Instead just SAY OUT LOUD that you're doing it. No ham in their right minds is going to be upset with you for "barging in" if you SAY that you're callsign routing and they know what that means and realize you can't hear what's going on at the far end.

                Callsign routing obviously is a fully-workable system all by itself (without D-PLUS linking) -- Japan's been using it, and ONLY it, for the entire time D-STAR has been deployed there. Over here, D-PLUS is virtually a requirement so a private company can sell and offer DV-Dongle... gateway operators don't really get a choice as to whether or not they want that particular add-on. And I'm not saying it isn't useful... it is... but I'd almost wish people HAD to learn the Icom way FIRST so they FULLY understand how the system was DESIGNED to work, prior to getting the keys to drive the D-PLUS links...

                THE ONLY REASON you find callsign routing "a problem" is because people refuse to learn it. Anyone that understands it, can deal with it... including hitting their One-Touch button to route back to the "interloper" and tell them what's happening.

                Trying to treat D-STAR like it wasn't source-routed and adding software to make it act like an analog system, is what got us to this so-called "problem" in the first place, not the other way around.

                --
                Nate Duehr, WY0X
                nate@...
              • Tony Langdon
                ... There s still the issue of local QSOs, source routing is still rather blind that way. Being one who did have to source route for a few months, as the
                Message 7 of 21 , Apr 8 4:30 PM
                  At 05:59 AM 4/9/2010, you wrote:

                  >This is more a sign of really poor integration of the regular
                  >features vs. the add-on features, than anything. If the two were
                  >"aware" of each other in any way, a message could be sent back to
                  >the user who is "barging" in saying the remote system is linked somewhere.

                  There's still the issue of local QSOs, source routing is still rather
                  "blind" that way. Being one who did have to source route for a few
                  months, as the only way to get out of the local area, I did get to
                  learn that method. Also, things got tricky when we had people source
                  routing from two different places, so which do you reply to?
                  ;) Often this was because source routing was already in use with a
                  couple of locals talking to one station, then someone else drops
                  in. They get no busi indication, because they actually manage to
                  time it for the break between transmissions (Murphy's Law).

                  So, not all routing conflicts are with DPlus. Some are with local
                  users, and some are with other source routed traffic, and sometimes
                  you coincidentally time it so you manage to cause a bit of confusion. :D

                  That said, there are a few scenarios where I will still use source
                  routing. It's low overhead (no need to tear down a default link,
                  establish a new link, then tear that down when you're done) and has
                  some smarts for finding people.


                  >Easy to fix, if Icom were really interested. They're not. And
                  >D-PLUS can't do it all "alone" so to speak. It would require a new
                  >release of Gateway software that had been built with linking in mind.

                  That would help too, though being able to source route while a system
                  is linked has its advantages too, like for that quick call - a couple
                  of overs and you're gone type of thing (assuming the link itself is
                  idle at the time).


                  >As it stands today, two things must happen...

                  Both common sense and basically what I do.

                  >THE ONLY REASON you find callsign routing "a problem" is because
                  >people refuse to learn it. Anyone that understands it, can deal
                  >with it... including hitting their One-Touch button to route back to
                  >the "interloper" and tell them what's happening.

                  I agree here.


                  >Trying to treat D-STAR like it wasn't source-routed and adding
                  >software to make it act like an analog system, is what got us to
                  >this so-called "problem" in the first place, not the other way around.

                  Both methods have their place. Source routing works well for some
                  scenarios, not for others. In particular, it doesn't handle large
                  scale nets well (the multicast feature requires administrative
                  intervention, and concentrates bandwidth use where it's least
                  appropriate - at the end nodes). It does handle point to point
                  traffic very well.

                  73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
                  http://vkradio.com
                • interpretercat@gmail.com
                  Hello all!!! Okay, so I got some great info. To follow up, when I am using our local repeater, in the middle of a QSO, the repeater will vacillate between
                  Message 8 of 21 , Apr 8 5:27 PM
                    Hello all!!!
                    Okay, so I got some great info. To follow up, when I am using our local repeater, in the middle of a QSO, the repeater will vacillate between linkking and unlinking. I'm not controlling anything. It really gets my hackles up when it knocks me out of my QSO and my transmissions is continuously lost! this has been a big source of frustration. I don't know if the others can hear me, and I asl them to atleast let me finish my QSO! wonder if there is a way for others even if they are not registered for everyone to hear so they don't key up and knock my transmission! That is what really makes me want to throw the !*&* radio in the toilet! Is it time for us revolt and set up a new system? it is simply not going to work in heavily populated areas if it continues this way! I know others share my frustration too. If they made the registration process uncomplicated by just typing in your name, call sign and password, instead of registering with a club, and putting in the necessary sp
                    aces, asterisks and #'s, everything would be much simpler and less confusion for un non- technical folks. Make everything so there is no need for a users manual just to !*&#$* sign up.
                    Surly someone agrees, si?
                    73- cat
                  • John D. Hays
                    ... Registration of user radios shouldn t even be required, but that s how Icom designed it. Until a new gateway system is written that abandons it, we re
                    Message 9 of 21 , Apr 8 7:47 PM
                      interpretercat@... wrote:
                       

                      If they made the registration process uncomplicated by just typing in your name, call sign and password, instead of registering with a club, and putting in the necessary sp
                      aces, asterisks and #'s, everything would be much simpler and less confusion for un non- technical folks. Make everything so there is no need for a users manual just to !*&#$* sign up.
                      Surly someone agrees, si?
                      73- cat

                      Registration of user radios shouldn't even be required, but that's how Icom designed it.  Until a new gateway system is written that abandons it, we're stuck with it.
                      --
                      John D. Hays
                      Amateur Radio Station K7VE
                      PO Box 1223
                      Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
                      VOIP/SIP: john@...
                      Email: john@...
                    • Gary Pearce KN4AQ
                      ... A small correction - they don t reset the MY CALL field - that one stays put until you change it. ... If I had to choose between call sign routing or DPLUS
                      Message 10 of 21 , Apr 8 9:37 PM
                        At 03:59 PM 4/8/2010, Nate Duehr wrote:
                        ... All the current Icom rigs reset the four callsign fields anytime you tune to a new memory channel.

                        A small correction - they don't reset the MY CALL field - that one stays put until you change it.

                        ...Callsign routing obviously is a fully-workable system all by itself (without D-PLUS linking)... Over here, D-PLUS is virtually a requirement so a private company can sell and offer DV-Dongle... gateway operators don't really get a choice as to whether or not they want that particular add-on. And I'm not saying it isn't useful... it is... but I'd almost wish people HAD to learn the Icom way FIRST so they FULLY understand how the system was DESIGNED to work, prior to getting the keys to drive the D-PLUS links....
                        --
                        Nate Duehr, WY0X

                        If I had to choose between call sign routing or DPLUS linking, it would be a no-brainer for DPLUS. Call sign routing has it's uses, but it's too convoluted and complicated. DPLUS does 95% of what we wanted D-STAR to do, but the Japanese engineers just didn't understand.

                        Well, I don't mean to scare you new D-STAR users off of call sign routing. It exists. It's not THAT complicated. And it is useful. But I won't be surprised if most of you never bother to learn it, because most of the time, DPLUS does exactly what you want.

                        I don't expect that call sign routed Barge-Ins will be much of a problem, simply because so few of us will be doing it.

                        One use:  alerting the users of a repeater that's busy with DPLUS that you'd like to reach somebody there.

                        Hmmm... maybe DPLUS needs "Call Waiting."

                        Unless you prefer an expensive repeater system that carries almost no traffic, DPLUS and the reflectors make D-STAR worth having.

                        Thanks you, Robin!

                        73,
                        Gary KN4AQ

                        ARVN: Amateur Radio//Video News
                        Gary Pearce KN4AQ
                        508 Spencer Crest Ct.
                        Cary, NC 27513
                        kn4aq@...
                        919-380-9944
                        www.ARVideoNews.com

                      • Woodrick, Ed
                        Nate, Please get your fact straights before spreading FUD. D-PLUS was created before the DVDongle. D-PLUS is NOT REQUIRED for a D-STAR repeater, or one that is
                        Message 11 of 21 , Apr 9 7:48 AM

                          Nate,

                           

                          Please get your fact straights before spreading FUD.

                           

                          D-PLUS was created before the DVDongle. D-PLUS is NOT REQUIRED for a D-STAR repeater, or one that is connected to the Trust Server. Again, DPLUS IS NOT REQUIRED! Of course not installing it would probably be foolhardy as linking is pretty much a way of life for may repeaters.

                           

                          People refusing to learn callsign routing IS NOT THE ONLY REASON. I know how to do it (after all, I kinda wrote the book).  But I don’t like its implementation. I don’t use it. I think that it is a relatively ill-conceived function that was only half-heatedly though through. I believe that you also may be making a mistake to believe that Icom’s gateway implementation is the way that it was intended to be utilized.

                           

                          I can with good conscious, state that without DPLUS, DSTAR would probably have died. Or at least be at significantly lower levels of penetration than today. A LOT of people enjoy listening to REF001C and the nets. A lot of grant money has been spent with the capability to link repeaters pretty much a requirement.

                           

                          By the way, what have you done for D-STAR today?

                           

                          Ed

                           

                           

                           

                          From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr
                          Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 3:59 PM
                          To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

                           

                          Over here, D-PLUS is virtually a requirement so a private company can sell and offer DV-Dongle... gateway operators don't really get a choice as to whether or not they want that particular add-on. And I'm not saying it isn't useful... it is... but I'd almost wish people HAD to learn the Icom way FIRST so they FULLY understand how the system was DESIGNED to work, prior to getting the keys to drive the D-PLUS links...

                          THE ONLY REASON you find callsign routing "a problem" is because people refuse to learn it. Anyone that understands it, can deal with it... including hitting their One-Touch button to route back to the "interloper" and tell them what's happening.

                          Trying to treat D-STAR like it wasn't source-routed and adding software to make it act like an analog system, is what got us to this so-called "problem" in the first place, not the other way around.

                          --
                          Nate Duehr, WY0X
                          nate@...

                        • john_ke5c
                          ... Chronologically dplus appeared before the dongle, but conceptually? The dongle market certainly appears to drive dplus development since. ... Foolhardy? -
                          Message 12 of 21 , Apr 9 9:10 AM
                            > D-PLUS was created before the DVDongle. D-PLUS is NOT REQUIRED for a D-STAR repeater, or one that is connected to the Trust Server.

                            Chronologically dplus appeared before the dongle, but conceptually? The dongle market certainly appears to drive dplus development since.

                            > Again, DPLUS IS NOT REQUIRED! Of course not installing it would probably be foolhardy as linking is pretty much a way of life for may repeaters.

                            Foolhardy? - "foolishly adventurous and bold" not to install dplus? That may be an inappropriate characterization.

                            > People refusing to learn callsign routing IS NOT THE ONLY REASON. I know how to do it (after all, I kinda wrote the book). But I don't like its implementation. I don't use it. I think that it is a relatively ill-conceived function that was only half-heatedly though through. I believe that you also may be making a mistake to believe that Icom's gateway implementation is the way that it was intended to be utilized.

                            Yes, it is hard for old timers to give up old ways of operating and learn new concepts.

                            > I can with good conscious, state that without DPLUS, DSTAR would probably have died. Or at least be at significantly lower levels of penetration than today. A LOT of people enjoy listening to REF001C and the nets. A lot of grant money has been spent with the capability to link repeaters pretty much a requirement.

                            Now that truly is a foolhardy assertion!

                            73--John
                          • Woodrick, Ed
                            And if you want “Real D-STAR” then might as well shut down the Last Heard list and APRS gateway. ☺ Ed WA4YIH From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
                            Message 13 of 21 , Apr 9 2:58 PM

                              And if you want “Real D-STAR” then might as well shut down the Last Heard list and APRS gateway. J

                               

                               

                               

                              Ed WA4YIH

                               

                              From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Adrian
                              Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 5:09 PM
                              To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

                               

                               

                               



                              > I can with good conscious, state that without DPLUS, DSTAR would probably have died. Or at least be at significantly lower levels of penetration than today. A LOT of people enjoy listening to REF001C and the nets. A lot of grant money has been spent with the capability to link repeaters pretty much a requirement.

                              Now that truly is a foolhardy assertion!

                              73--John


                              I don't think so, I fully agree with Ed, I have seen many user´s drop off dstar, due to callsign routing technique not
                              satisfying their desire to listen in on a qso first before joining in.

                              To justify Ed´s point, you could shut down dplus on all gateway´s, and watch Last Heard to see the difference in activity.
                              I know where I would wager a bet on the difference.

                              vk4tux

                            • Tony Langdon
                              ... Good point. Hams love listening. It s part and parcel of the hobby, whether people like it or not. Echolink has repeatedly had the same discussion over
                              Message 14 of 21 , Apr 9 3:52 PM
                                >
                                >I don't think so, I fully agree with Ed, I have
                                >seen many user´s drop off dstar, due to callsign routing technique not
                                >satisfying their desire to listen in on a qso first before joining in.

                                Good point. Hams love listening. It's part and
                                parcel of the hobby, whether people like it or
                                not. Echolink has repeatedly had the same
                                discussion over "silent connects", where people
                                connect, say nothing, then disconnect. Once you
                                discount those that happen for technical reason,
                                the majority of the rest are people listening to see if there is any activity.

                                Ham radio modes really do need to cater to
                                listeners. I do it myself, I often park my hotspot on REF003 C and listen.

                                73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
                                http://vkradio.com
                              • Nate Duehr
                                ... FUD means Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt , none of which I am spreading . ... That s not what the e-mail I have from the Trust Server team said when I
                                Message 15 of 21 , Apr 10 12:12 AM
                                  On 4/9/2010 8:48 AM, Woodrick, Ed wrote:  

                                  Nate,

                                   

                                  Please get your fact straights before spreading FUD.


                                  FUD means "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt", none of which I am "spreading".

                                   

                                  D-PLUS was created before the DVDongle. D-PLUS is NOT REQUIRED for a D-STAR repeater, or one that is connected to the Trust Server. Again, DPLUS IS NOT REQUIRED! Of course not installing it would probably be foolhardy as linking is pretty much a way of life for may repeaters.


                                  That's not what the e-mail I have from the Trust Server team said when I turned up W0CDS.  I can produce that e-mail if you like. 

                                  If you can point to the official documentation that says it's not required, please feel free. If things have changed, it'd sure be nice if this stuff wasn't passed on by word-of-mouth and folklore in a network this large.  Documentation from those who make the decisions, would be great. I've never seen any.  Show us the way...

                                  People refusing to learn c allsign routing IS NOT THE ONLY REASON. I know how to do it (after all, I kinda wrote the book).  But I don’t like its implementation. I don’t use it. I think that it is a relatively ill-conceived function that was only half-heatedly though through. I believe that you also may be making a mistake to believe that Icom’s gateway implementation is the way that it was intended to be utilized.


                                  It's the way *Icom* intended THEIR GATEWAY it to be utilized, otherwise they wouldn't have put their name on it and started shipping it, would they?  You read too much into things, Ed.  I never said one or the other was "bad" or "good"... I said they both hase plusses and minuses, and that Icom's ENGINEERING DESIGN of their Gateway, and thus, how they did their USER DESIGN of the rigs, never included D-PLUS.  That's all well-known fact, after all.  Note how they added MORE features to the latest rig that didn't play nicely with D-PLUS.  Are they stupid?  They know D-PLUS is everywhere on the U.S. Trust system.  Or do you propose that they just ignored it?  Why would they do that?  Because... they don't care at all about it.  That or they're hideously horrible engineers who aren't paying any attention at all... and I can't bring myself to say that.

                                  You judge.  But it's clear they're not paying any attention to making radios (if they had time to put changes in to make callsign routing easier, they sure as hell could have added "linking memories" and other interface changes to make D-PLUS easier... but then they'd have to explain why they don't have D-PLUS loaded on the repeaters in Japan.  They'd LOSE FACE... which is not something Japanese businessmen do lightly, nor engineers.  Been there, seen that in my professional job, got the t-shirt.

                                  Like I said, I asked Icom to let me build them a complete computer for their demo system they were going to bring to Colorado and they refused to allow D-PLUS on it.  I was told it could NOT be put on Icom-operated demo gear, per Japan.  I can dig up those e-mails if you'd like them too. 

                                  Icom's own reps are NOT SUPPOSED TO DEMO D-PLUS.  I'm only going off of that fact.  If you'd like to call them and get them to post documentation otherwise, again... feel free.

                                   

                                  I can with good conscous, state that without DPLUS, DSTAR would probably have died. Or at least be at significantly lower levels of penetration than today. A LOT of people enjoy listening to REF001C and the nets. A lot of grant money has been spent with the capability to link repeaters pretty much a requirement.


                                  Now in this, we probably agree.  D-STAR would have been dead without the ability to link the very few users in each repeater's coverage area to other areas with more activity. 

                                  As the local area gets busier, though -- most groups have to set aside one module in the stack where they allow D-PLUS linking, and keep another for local traffic. 

                                  Normal patterns of behavior for linked and unlinked repeaters these days... D-STAR has no claim to fame on this one. 

                                  Linked repeater systems are popular, because they're more useful for "CQ" types of contacts.  All completely normal.

                                  On D-STAR, just get callsigns on the screen on the linked system... that's about the only difference.  No one attempts low-speed data (other than GPS-A) on Reflectors unless they're set aside for the purpose because it's a channel-hog and people don't understand it.  In fact, people just don't understand much about D-STAR, really.  They want to mash-to-mumble, and have it go world-wide.  That's fine, if that's your goal in Ham Radio... but that goal can be accomplished a LOT cheaper with a pile of MASTR II's and some old clunker PC's on analog.

                                  So the benefit of D-STAR over a well-built linked  analog system is fairly nil when linked.  It offers nothing the other system doesn't do.  (In fact, the analog system might even be VOTED - I'm not holding my breath for a voted D-STAR receier system)

                                  By the way, what have you done for D-STAR today?


                                  I hang around here and answer the new people's questions.  I take care of my Gateway and actually watch the logs when the Icom DB implementation barfs all over itself.  I answer questions locally and register people with this moronic registration system we're all stuck with.  I teach local classes on the topic when asked.  I offer to set up fully-working systems at ARRL Conventions and get told by Icom to go pound sand.  Is there more I should be doing, Ed?  For Icom?  Am I not raising the "one-true-banner" high enough for you and singing praises to the almighty D-STAR loud enough?

                                  You constantly tell me what you "think" about D-STAR.  I don't see why you're so obsessed with refuting my opinions, which you do poorly I might add, unless you're threatened by them in some way.  Do you run systems dependent on tax dollars for their existence, perhaps?  That's my only guess... I have no idea.

                                  I have been doing computers and digital comm for so many years, I really don't care what system gets used... as long as it meets the communicators requirements.  If D-STAR meets your requirements, great.  If not, that's fine too.  I certainly won't "scare anyone off" who's committed to learning this new technology, or already well entrenched in it (as yourself).  I've got rigs, I know how to use them. 

                                  But I have no aspirations to "push" the mode over any other... whatever works, is always the technology we need to use... we should know them all.  Not be fan-boys of one particular one. 

                                  Most of the folks here are jacks-of-all-trades and operate multiple repeater linking methods...

                                  This is a discussion forum about the mode.  Here we discuss both the good AND the bad of it.  If that bugs you, learn to tough it out, big boy.  You keep attacking and spreading FUD about ME... and I'll continue to not care, 'cause you're WAY too engaged for a HOBBY. 

                                  Guess what... None of the public safety folks in the big cities care, or even know, what D-STAR is... "Oh, that's that Ham Radio thing."... if you're lucky.  I hung out at the largest Fire/Medical dispatch center in the Denver Metro area last night.  No one there had even heard of Ham Radio, let alone... D-STAR.

                                  Someone managed to get a grant for a grand total of about 4-5 ID-1's in one city here.  I recommended they try to do some real file transfers with ALL 5 units at the same time, and see how slow it is... so they can set appropriate procedures for the use of the rigs.  Going through the Gateway isn't going to work for more than about 5 units simultaneously, and the data rates will fall so dramatically that they're going to wonder why they spent $1000 on each rig, I'm afraid. We'll see. Engineering analysis shows that's where it'll fall apart,  It'll be nice to have more than two ID-1's in the entire Metro area -- of 3.5 million people -- to try it out.

                                  6 different ARES groups technically "own"/"operate" our repeater here.  I haven't heard a single ARES Net on it yet...

                                  Nate WY0X
                                • Gary Lindtner
                                  Nate WY0X wrote: Guess what... None of the public safety folks in the big cities care, or even know, what D-STAR is... Oh, that s that Ham Radio thing. ...
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Apr 10 4:11 AM

                                    Nate WY0X wrote:


                                    "Guess what... None of the public safety folks in the big cities care, or even know, what D-STAR is... "Oh, that's that Ham Radio thing."... if you're lucky.  I hung out at the largest Fire/Medical dispatch center in the Denver Metro area last night.  No one there had even heard of Ham Radio, let alone... D-STAR."

                                     

                                    I can absolutely confirm this statement is true for New York City.

                                     

                                    Gary

                                    KB2BSL


                                  • Woodrick, Ed
                                    From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 3:13 AM To:
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Apr 10 3:56 PM

                                       

                                       

                                      From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr
                                      Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 3:13 AM
                                      To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

                                       

                                       

                                      On 4/9/2010 8:48 AM, Woodrick, Ed wrote:

                                       

                                      Nate,

                                       

                                      Please get your fact straights before spreading FUD.


                                      FUD means "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt", none of which I am "spreading".

                                      I stand by my points. Just in your response you responded with FUD about the ID-1 and low speed data. All of your statements were essentially saying “I doubt that they will work” “I fear that the cost of the ID-1 is too much”

                                       

                                      D-PLUS was created before the DVDongle. D-PLUS is NOT REQUIRED for a D-STAR repeater, or one that is connected to the Trust Server. Again, DPLUS IS NOT REQUIRED! Of course not installing it would probably be foolhardy as linking is pretty much a way of life for may repeaters.


                                      That's not what the e-mail I have from the Trust Server team said when I turned up W0CDS.  I can produce that e-mail if you like. 

                                      Ask Robin or Pete or the Trust Team if DSTARMON or DPLUS is REQUIRED. It is not. I know what the letter says. And there are repeaters on the US Trust Server who do not have them installed.

                                      People refusing to learn c allsign routing IS NOT THE ONLY REASON. I know how to do it (after all, I kinda wrote the book).  But I don’t like its implementation. I don’t use it. I think that it is a relatively ill-conceived function that was only half-heatedly though through. I believe that you also may be making a mistake to believe that Icom’s gateway implementation is the way that it was intended to be utilized.


                                      It's the way *Icom* intended THEIR GATEWAY

                                       You statement was “THE ONLY REASON” I had another reason, therefore your point is incorrect.




                                      Nate WY0X

                                    • Will Wright
                                      Nate, Good reply! this is all good stuff! A very good read Oh, what do you think about those who try to improve the hobby (D-Star) but look down on? Like the
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Apr 14 9:34 AM
                                        Nate,

                                        Good reply! this is all good stuff! A very good read

                                        Oh, what do you think about those who try to improve the hobby (D-Star)
                                        but look down on? Like the hams in Germany?

                                        Will

                                        Nate Duehr wrote:
                                        >
                                        > On 4/9/2010 8:48 AM, Woodrick, Ed wrote:
                                        >
                                        >> Nate,
                                        >>
                                        >> Please get your fact straights before spreading FUD.
                                        >>
                                        >
                                        > FUD means "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt", none of which I am "spreading".
                                        >
                                        >> D-PLUS was created before the DVDongle. D-PLUS is NOT REQUIRED for a
                                        >> D-STAR repeater, or one that is connected to the Trust Server. Again,
                                        >> DPLUS IS NOT REQUIRED! Of course not installing it would probably be
                                        >> foolhardy as linking is pretty much a way of life for may repeaters.
                                        >>
                                        >
                                        > That's not what the e-mail I have from the Trust Server team said when
                                        > I turned up W0CDS. I can produce that e-mail if you like.
                                        >
                                        > If you can point to the official documentation that says it's not
                                        > required, please feel free. If things have changed, it'd sure be nice
                                        > if this stuff wasn't passed on by word-of-mouth and folklore in a
                                        > network this large. Documentation from those who make the decisions,
                                        > would be great. I've never seen any. Show us the way...
                                        >
                                        >> People refusing to learn c allsign routing IS NOT THE ONLY REASON. I
                                        >> know how to do it (after all, I kinda wrote the book). But I don’t
                                        >> like its implementation. I don’t use it. I think that it is a
                                        >> relatively ill-conceived function that was only half-heatedly though
                                        >> through. I believe that you also may be making a mistake to believe
                                        >> that Icom’s gateway implementation is the way that it was intended to
                                        >> be utilized.
                                        >>
                                        >
                                        > It's the way *Icom* intended THEIR GATEWAY it to be utilized,
                                        > otherwise they wouldn't have put their name on it and started shipping
                                        > it, would they? You read too much into things, Ed. I never said one or
                                        > the other was "bad" or "good"... I said they both hase plusses and
                                        > minuses, and that Icom's ENGINEERING DESIGN of their Gateway, and
                                        > thus, how they did their USER DESIGN of the rigs, never included
                                        > D-PLUS. That's all well-known fact, after all. Note how they added
                                        > MORE features to the latest rig that didn't play nicely with D-PLUS.
                                        > Are they stupid? They know D-PLUS is everywhere on the U.S. Trust
                                        > system. Or do you propose that they just ignored it? Why would they do
                                        > that? Because... they don't care at all about it. That or they're
                                        > hideously horrible engineers who aren't paying any attention at all...
                                        > and I can't bring myself to say that.
                                        >
                                        > You judge. But it's clear they're not paying any attention to making
                                        > radios (if they had time to put changes in to make callsign routing
                                        > easier, they sure as hell could have added "linking memories" and
                                        > other interface changes to make D-PLUS easier... but then they'd have
                                        > to explain why they don't have D-PLUS loaded on the repeaters in
                                        > Japan. They'd LOSE FACE... which is not something Japanese businessmen
                                        > do lightly, nor engineers. Been there, seen that in my professional
                                        > job, got the t-shirt.
                                        >
                                        > Like I said, I asked Icom to let me build them a complete computer for
                                        > their demo system they were going to bring to Colorado and they
                                        > refused to allow D-PLUS on it. I was told it could NOT be put on
                                        > Icom-operated demo gear, per Japan. I can dig up those e-mails if
                                        > you'd like them too.
                                        >
                                        > Icom's own reps are NOT SUPPOSED TO DEMO D-PLUS. I'm only going off of
                                        > that fact. If you'd like to call them and get them to post
                                        > documentation otherwise, again... feel free.
                                        >
                                        >> I can with good conscous, state that without DPLUS, DSTAR would
                                        >> probably have died. Or at least be at significantly lower levels of
                                        >> penetration than today. A LOT of people enjoy listening to REF001C
                                        >> and the nets. A lot of grant money has been spent with the capability
                                        >> to link repeaters pretty much a requirement.
                                        >>
                                        >
                                        > Now in this, we probably agree. D-STAR would have been dead without
                                        > the ability to link the very few users in each repeater's coverage
                                        > area to other areas with more activity.
                                        >
                                        > As the local area gets busier, though -- most groups have to set aside
                                        > one module in the stack where they allow D-PLUS linking, and keep
                                        > another for local traffic.
                                        >
                                        > Normal patterns of behavior for linked and unlinked repeaters these
                                        > days... D-STAR has no claim to fame on this one.
                                        >
                                        > Linked repeater systems are popular, because they're more useful for
                                        > "CQ" types of contacts. All completely normal.
                                        >
                                        > On D-STAR, just get callsigns on the screen on the linked system...
                                        > that's about the only difference. No one attempts low-speed data
                                        > (other than GPS-A) on Reflectors unless they're set aside for the
                                        > purpose because it's a channel-hog and people don't understand it. In
                                        > fact, people just don't understand much about D-STAR, really. They
                                        > want to mash-to-mumble, and have it go world-wide. That's fine, if
                                        > that's your goal in Ham Radio... but that goal can be accomplished a
                                        > LOT cheaper with a pile of MASTR II's and some old clunker PC's on analog.
                                        >
                                        > So the benefit of D-STAR over a well-built linked analog system is
                                        > fairly nil when linked. It offers nothing the other system doesn't do.
                                        > (In fact, the analog system might even be VOTED - I'm not holding my
                                        > breath for a voted D-STAR receier system)
                                        >
                                        >> By the way, what have you done for D-STAR today?
                                        >>
                                        >
                                        > I hang around here and answer the new people's questions. I take care
                                        > of my Gateway and actually watch the logs when the Icom DB
                                        > implementation barfs all over itself. I answer questions locally and
                                        > register people with this moronic registration system we're all stuck
                                        > with. I teach local classes on the topic when asked. I offer to set up
                                        > fully-working systems at ARRL Conventions and get told by Icom to go
                                        > pound sand. Is there more I should be doing, Ed? For Icom? Am I not
                                        > raising the "one-true-banner" high enough for you and singing praises
                                        > to the almighty D-STAR loud enough?
                                        >
                                        > You constantly tell me what you "think" about D-STAR. I don't see why
                                        > you're so obsessed with refuting my opinions, which you do poorly I
                                        > might add, unless you're threatened by them in some way. Do you run
                                        > systems dependent on tax dollars for their existence, perhaps? That's
                                        > my only guess... I have no idea.
                                        >
                                        > I have been doing computers and digital comm for so many years, I
                                        > really don't care what system gets used... as long as it meets the
                                        > communicators requirements. If D-STAR meets your requirements, great.
                                        > If not, that's fine too. I certainly won't "scare anyone off" who's
                                        > committed to learning this new technology, or already well entrenched
                                        > in it (as yourself). I've got rigs, I know how to use them.
                                        >
                                        > But I have no aspirations to "push" the mode over any other...
                                        > whatever works, is always the technology we need to use... we should
                                        > know them all. Not be fan-boys of one particular one.
                                        >
                                        > Most of the folks here are jacks-of-all-trades and operate multiple
                                        > repeater linking methods...
                                        >
                                        > This is a discussion forum about the mode. Here we discuss both the
                                        > good AND the bad of it. If that bugs you, learn to tough it out, big
                                        > boy. You keep attacking and spreading FUD about ME... and I'll
                                        > continue to not care, 'cause you're WAY too engaged for a HOBBY.
                                        >
                                        > Guess what... None of the public safety folks in the big cities care,
                                        > or even know, what D-STAR is... "Oh, that's that Ham Radio thing."...
                                        > if you're lucky. I hung out at the largest Fire/Medical dispatch
                                        > center in the Denver Metro area last night. No one there had even
                                        > heard of Ham Radio, let alone... D-STAR.
                                        >
                                        > Someone managed to get a grant for a grand total of about 4-5 ID-1's
                                        > in one city here. I recommended they try to do some real file
                                        > transfers with ALL 5 units at the same time, and see how slow it is...
                                        > so they can set appropriate procedures for the use of the rigs. Going
                                        > through the Gateway isn't going to work for more than about 5 units
                                        > simultaneously, and the data rates will fall so dramatically that
                                        > they're going to wonder why they spent $1000 on each rig, I'm afraid.
                                        > We'll see. Engineering analysis shows that's where it'll fall apart,
                                        > It'll be nice to have more than two ID-1's in the entire Metro area --
                                        > of 3.5 million people -- to try it out.
                                        >
                                        > 6 different ARES groups technically "own"/"operate" our repeater here.
                                        > I haven't heard a single ARES Net on it yet...
                                        >
                                        > Nate WY0X
                                        >
                                      • Chris Fowler
                                        ... #1. They currently have a monopoly and know we ll buy even if D-Plus become incompatible in some way. #2. They believe their solution is far superior and
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Apr 15 3:58 AM
                                          On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 01:12 -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:
                                          > Note how they added MORE features to the latest rig that didn't play
                                          > nicely with D-PLUS. Are they stupid?

                                          #1. They currently have a monopoly and know we'll buy even if D-Plus
                                          become incompatible in some way.

                                          #2. They believe their solution is far superior and we are the ones not
                                          doing it right.

                                          #3. They don't have to support anything D-Plus related.

                                          We have US based D-Star reps. Talk to them and ask if ICOM Japan is
                                          stupid.
                                        • John D. Hays
                                          ... Last year, I was in a meeting with the head of Icom s D-STAR development from Japan. I tried to explain to him how DD could be more effectively marketed
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Apr 15 9:55 AM
                                            Chris Fowler wrote:
                                             


                                            We have US based D-Star reps. Talk to them and ask if ICOM Japan is
                                            stupid.

                                            Last year, I was in a meeting with the head of Icom's D-STAR development from Japan.  I tried to explain to him how DD could be more effectively marketed in the US (a lower cost unit with an Ethernet port on one end and an antenna connector on the other - I had a few EMCOMM people in the room who agreed that this was needed on 23cm, plus some interest in a 70cm DD device), and his reaction demonstrated a total lack of interest in what the US market thought, e.g. he was the expert and he would define what we needed in the market place. 

                                            When the 9100 was announced, I looked at the specs and the US regulations and it appears to me that D-STAR meets the requirements to operate on more than the 10m HF bands. (Part 97.305 D-STAR has a modulation index of  0.5 and a bandwidth comparable to phone transmission (AM)) I suggested to US Icom product management that the firmware should not limit D-STAR below 10m, the response was "it's too late in the development."

                                            I am a fan of Icom amateur radios, and own a few and will probably buy more over time -- but even though Icom's US amateur radio management is pretty tuned in to the US market, they still work for Icom Japan.

                                            Their software, on the other hand, is not very good at all. If they would publish full specifications a lot of software could be written that would expand their sales considerably.  Fortunately, we have some good reverse engineering experts in our ranks and there his a lot of activity going on to create alternatives to the Icom G2 system.  Unfortunately, those same folks are building G2 compatible software that propagates the horrible architecture that currently exists.

                                            --
                                            John D. Hays
                                            Amateur Radio Station K7VE
                                            PO Box 1223
                                            Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
                                            VOIP/SIP: john@...
                                            Email: john@...
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.