[FADCA] Re: [wl2kemcomm] Re: Lets Get Back To Winlink!

[Russell Oder]

Thanks, Bud. Have a good trip.  We will explore these issues over the coming
weeks.

I agree, we need to support the packet services that folks are willing to
provide.  I was just concerned that there may come a time that we will need
to have more control over what goes on a LAN (s) and some Links if a
disaster exists.

On a related issue I just sent a note regarding full duplex links on 100 khz
wide channels that could support up to 56kb data.  Full duplex gets rid of
the switching from TX to RX delays we experience and can make 9k6 almost
9k6.

That would reduce link problems regarding the level of traffic.

Russ

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "bud thompson" <budt at cfl.rr.com>
To: "Russell Oder" <oderr at bellsouth.net>; "Bill Sinbine"
<n4xeo at bellsouth.net>; "John Green WB4MOZ" <wb4moz at arrl.net>; "John Young"
<jdy at whitney.ufl.edu>; "Doug Welcker" <wb4kgy at bellsouth.net>; "Chuck Hast"
<wchast at gmail.com>; "FADCA" <fadca at mailman.qth.net>
Cc: "John Green" <wb4moz at adelphia.net>; "Rick Muething KN6KB"
<rmuething at cfl.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: [wl2kemcomm] Re: Lets Get Back To Winlink!


> From bud-
>
> Sally and I are headed out the door to the airport for a week in the
Denver
> area with all of our seven of eight surviving children and all but three
of
> our 13 grandchildren.  (Yes, they are young adults now and have to work!)
>
> In a subsequent response Chuck answered the FPAC/LINUX stuff- here I want
to
> make limited comment on some other stuff - and hold the option to (1) add
> more later, or (2) change my mind.
>
> Russ asked:
>
> > Q4.  With Winlink, the use of BBS forwarding may no longer be necessary
> > with
> > regard to supporting emergency communications. Is there a way to Block
> > connections into the network by selected calls?  Is there a way to
> > remotely
> > prevent a BBS from doing it normal forwarding but allow a different call
> > on
> > the BBS or a nother BBS from being able to handle emergency forwarding
if
> > necessary?
> >
>
> While the WL2K scheme is independent of and not compatible with
conventional
> BBS operation and forwarding, I suggest we not hinder those who want to do
> so over the network.  We should have so much packet activity that BBS
> forwarding over the backbones becomes a problem - I'd welcome such a
problem
> and we can address solutions when it happens.
>
> > Q6.  We have been coordinating LAN frequencies and link frequencies but
> > there has been no work put into "alternative" UNPUBLISHED LAN and Link
> > frequencies (an overlay to the Layered Network that could be implemented
> > in
> > a disaster.)  Do we need to do that as part of the FADCA service?
>
> >
> >
> > Q8.   Do we need to publish a Florida Emergency Digital Communications
> > plan
> > on our web site to be used as a guide by sysops and sponsoring groups to
> > include the above as well as the development of Telpac Nodes and PMBOs?
> >
>
> By all means.  I started a draft of such a document a year ago, but had to
> set it aside as the WL2K/ARESCOM capabilities being developed were fluid
to
> say the least!  Basically FADCA could provide a Guideline for Emergency
> Coordinators on how WL2K/ARESCOM can be incorporated into a local
ARES/RACES
> group's EMCOMM Plan. The Layered Network needs to be ready to provide
> wide-based support.
>
> bud
>