[FADCA] Gateway, Anyone?

[Bill Sinbine]

I've sent this to the list since somewhere along the line it got rejected 
and not passed onto the FADCA list.

bud I'll try and see what was up with it but from just looking at the 
message you sent me it looks like it was rejected before it got to the 
FADCA list.

73 and Happy New Year to all

Bill N4XEO

Subject: [wl2kemcomm] Gateway, Anyone?
Reply-To: wl2kemcomm at yahoogroups.com


Subject changed from Re: Creating a Portable Packet to Airmail Emergency
Interface?

I can't find Russ' N4KOX original posting, but here is something of a
general reference to the topic.

The dual port KANTRONICS KAM-E, and KAM+ units have a firmware-based true
port-to-port GATEWAY that is (generally) mode independent, meaning that
any mode available on a port may be gatewayed to any mode available
on the other port.

VHF PORT 1200b Packet
HF PORT 300b Packet, AMTOR, G-TOR, PacTor 1

EQUIPMENT:  With an HF radio, VHF radio, HF antenna, VHF antenna, KAM, and
NO COMPUTER - a remote or fixed-base GATEWAY could

(1) bring far-reaching outposts into a VHF packet LAN/network where there
are TelPac nodes to bridge the last mile
or
(2) bridge a packet LAN w/o TelPac access across the LAST MILE via HF to a
PMBO (or TelPac node.)

The KAM can be configured for TOR mode on HF to respond to either AMTOR,
G-TOR, or Pactor 1, but only one of the HF modes can be primary for links
originating from the VHF packet port to go out the HF port.

HOW THIS WORKS:
In (1), a packet station on the LAN connects to the KAM GATEWAY on VHF,
transfers over to the HF side, and connects to a PMBO out the HF side using
Pactor 1, or to a TelPac node using packet.

In (2), an HF station in the boonies using AMTOR, G-TOR, or Pactor 1
connects to the KAM GATEWAY on the HF side, transfers over to the VHF side
and connects to a TelPac node on the packet network to get to a PMBO.

This capability has been available since the mid 90s, shortly after
Kantronics introduced PacTor and provided the optional "enhancement"
(daughter) board to make a KAM a KAM-E.  Once the process was proven, the
KAM was dropped in favor of a redesigned single-board KAM+.  G-TOR was a
firmware-addition (V7.1) later in response to the HAL CLOVER mode.

For several years, during the summer months, W5ZIT set up such a KAM GATEWAY
on a mountain in NM that was accessible via VHF packet from the valleys
below.  We worked BBS-to-BBS 40M/VHF GATEWAY all over the western half of
the US.  My Classic Winlink station in Las Vegas regularly provided
semi-automatic transfers.  I could use a terminal program and a KAM and get
into the NM gateway on AMTOR, G-TOR, or PacTOR 1 on HF and then to W5ZIT's
packet BBS/PBBS .

WL2K/ARESCOM application-  Using the Florida Peninsula as an example, no
more than three or four such GATEWAYS (remote or fixed-base), strategically
placed, could be established and tactical VHF packet or HF PacTOR, AMTOR, or
G-TOR stations could have extended network range w/o the need for additional
packet switches. Of course, to take full advantage of the B2F compression
and full automatic transfer capability, PacTOR 1 or Packet would have to be
used on the HF port.  Using 40M the entire state could be covered during the
daylight hours.  Adding 80m or 30m antennas and memory-scanning the HF
radios, could increase the effectiveness, and provide a level of 24/7
coverage.

Compared to a three packet port switch required every 30-50 miles for
overlapping LAN coverage in highly populated areas on our Florida Layered
Packet network, such GATEWAYS could be paid for out of loose pocket
change to initially bring out-lying ARES groups into the WL2K/ARESCOM
system. (Dust off those 15-20 year old HF radios!)

Perhaps by bringing outlying groups into the network cheaply (though at a
1990s throughput rate) would result in sufficient local interest by the
outlying groups to install appropriate packet network switches to increase
the density of the network, returning much of the activity to VHF/uhf packet
and increasing throughput.

A portable/tactical KAM+ GATEWAY could be established early during a remote
incident to tie local tactical Paclink stations back into a PMBO or Telpac
node on HF.

Remember also . . .
There is nothing sacrosanct about TelPac nodes being on VHF/uhf.  They will
work with an HF radio and 300b TNC (with due respect to conventional
concerns over HF Packet in general.)

There is nothing sacrosanct about a PMBO/PTC- packet port needing to be on
VHF/UHF - it can work 300b with an HF radio

Before the slamming starts . . .
I expect these Gateways could be done with the dual-port PTC series - I
faintly remember seeing something about a gateway being available in some
firmware version.  So those who remember that PacTOR 1 is slower than PacTOR
3 and that PacTor is preferable to Packet  on HF might look into this.

Before the slamming starts. . .
With this concept now firmly in mind - and with all due respect to
conventional concerns over HF Packet in general, making these GATEWAYS
packet/packet HF/VHF would facilitate using Paclink on HF in the boonies,
thus not requiring the use of  PacTor modems by the very remote tactical
user.  With further respect to conventional concerns over HF Packet, I have
experienced daylight 40M packet out to 100-150 miles and found it to be a
very reliable mode for the expense and effort to get on the air.  (There is
no one else
on!!)

Anything tied to Packet or PacTOR 1 is circa early 1990s technology, but may
be useful until more modern techniques such as SCAMP or other DSP schemes
are ready for wide-spread deployments.  However, I don't know of any
gateway/switches/store-and-forwarding type schemes being developed with
these new modes/protocols.

Happy New Year.

bud N0IA
















Think about it .....
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Bill Sinbine
n4xeo at bellsouth.net