HF Forwarding partners needed
I'm looking for some HF Forwarding partners for NTS and Emergence traffic as it becomes necessary don't need any bulletins over HF. I have a full time 24/7 BPQ32 station setup and ready to rock and roll here in the lower part of Texas where it seems to be forgotten. If you are interested send your connect script to this station, I will put your callsign in my forwarding file for a connection. To connect to my station, you can find the listed frequencies on WL2K webpage.
|
This morning I accessed BPQ Mail from a terminal window on the bpq host machine. Windows 10.? BPQ32 6.0.24.64 and BPQMail 6.0.24.62? (these were distributed together.)
?
Anything that I enter (LM, L, name, homebbs, anything) returns nothing to the terminal.? I can see that it connects to the BBS on the mail app, and the queue value goes to what looks to be accurate.? But nothing on the screen.
?
Accessing WebMail in a browser works normal.
Accessing the BBS from a browser terminal acts normal.
Accessing the BBS from another machin using telnet works normally.
The logs show exactly what the terminal does. No output to the terminal when accessed with a terminal window on the local machine.
?
I looked for all occurrances of my base call sign in my config. I do have a couple and commented them out.? Restarted and the same happens.
Forwarding is happening normally.
Recieving mail is happening normally.
?
Anyone else have this happen to them?? I probably have not accessed the BBS like this for months so have no clue when it started.? So many changes to the config file since I accessed the mail from a termina... Just not sure if this is isolated to my fat finguring the config file somewhere or if others have seen this.? Quite frankly, I don't even know where to start looking.
?
?
--
73,
Mark, N5MDT
Montgomery, Texas
?
?
?
|
Re: Need Advice: RF Only Forwarding
Hi Chris,
What you describe is a classic hidden node problem, the mountaintop station hears all, but stations on one side can not hear the other side, so can transmit over one another when talking to or through, the mountaintop.? So setup 2 is best as it has lower traffic levels on both sides on the link frequency.? But in both cases I would set up the mountaintop node in knet mode and let net rom provide visibility to nodes on all sides of the mountain. connect scripts would be trivial, as all nodes would be listed in each systems nodes table, so a simple c node is all that is needed in the scripts.? A digi is also possible but would have lower thruput due to traffic collisions when traffic levels are high because of the hidden node problem above. connect scripts would require using a c node via digi syntax. ? k-net works well for manual node hopping but is not meant for automatic networking.?
That's my $0.02 worth, hope it helps.
73 Jim KI0BK
?
|
Re: LINBPQ Fails to start with message: Active: failed (Result: start-limit-hit)
John
?
I appreciate your help, don't know why some times I over look start from the beginning
?
Found my error correct it and its working!
?
Thanks
?
Heber
NP4JN
|
Re: Need Advice: RF Only Forwarding
Hi Chuck. Tnx for the reply.
Yes, you are correct - they are hidden from each other, but are on different user frequencies - which means, in Scenario 1, the mountaintop node would have to be a gateway (KPC-9612 or 9612+) and forwarding would have to be during sleep hours.
?
It looks like the dedicated data link will be the better way. That would eliminate "hidden node syndrome" right?
?
Your thoughts...
?
Chris
ww2bsa
On 03/04/2025 8:59 PM EST Chuck Gelm <nc8q-aredn@...> wrote:
?
?
On 3/4/25 17:16, Chris Lance WW2BSA wrote:
Need Advice:
I'm setting up 2 RF only BPQ nodes that are not within RF range of each other. (Please see diagram below.) However, they each can access a node on a mountain between them. The node is a Kantronics? V9.1. In Scenario 1, forwarding would be done during sleep hours to avoid tying up the user channel. In Scenario 2, the data link would be 24/7.
?
- Kantronics has a KNet, KA-Node, and a simple Digipeater? Which type of node do you think would play well with BPQ for forwarding?
- What would the forwarding scripts look like between both stations via the node in each scenario?
- I'm curious to hear member comments on the pros and cons for each scenario.
Thank you!
73 de Chris WW2BSA
Hi, Chris:
Digipeating is the fastest.
Any node-mode would be more polite.
In your diagram I guarantee the mountaintop node will be an 'exposed node'.
It is likely that the nodes in each of the 2 valleys will be hidden nodes to each other.
Is there any chance that there could be 2 nodes on the mountain?
Wire connected and each covering a different valley and each on a different channel.
73, Chuck
|
Re: Need Advice: RF Only Forwarding
On 3/4/25 17:16, Chris Lance WW2BSA
wrote:
Need Advice:
I'm setting up 2 RF only BPQ nodes that
are not within RF range of each other. (Please see diagram
below.) However, they each can access a node on a
mountain between them. The node is a Kantronics? V9.1. In
Scenario 1, forwarding would be done during sleep hours to avoid
tying up the user channel. In Scenario 2, the data link would be
24/7.
?
- Kantronics has a KNet, KA-Node, and a simple Digipeater?
Which type of node do you think would play well with BPQ for
forwarding?
- What would the forwarding scripts look like between both
stations via the node in each scenario?
- I'm curious to hear member comments on the pros and cons
for each scenario.
Thank you!
73 de Chris WW2BSA
Hi, Chris:
Digipeating is the fastest.
Any node-mode would be more polite.
In your diagram I guarantee the mountaintop node will be an 'exposed
node'.
It is likely that the nodes in each of the 2 valleys will be hidden
nodes to each other.
Is there any chance that there could be 2 nodes on the mountain?
Wire connected and each covering a different valley and each on a
different channel.
73, Chuck
|
Re: Need Advice: RF Only Forwarding
Tnx for the info Mark. Will keep you in the loop as the project progresses.
Tnx es 73 de Chris ww2bsa
On 03/04/2025 7:01 PM EST Mark Taylor <mtaylor@...> wrote:
?
?
?
Ok, here are your considerations.
?
Kantronics in KA-Node is creating a NetRom link, if i am not mistaken, and creates a LOT of traffic.? I avoid this at all costs.? But that is just me in my county and my preferences.
The advantage is that a message send from one use to the other as the packets are sent they are ACK'd by the KA-node and that's that.? Then the KA-node transmit to destination and the destination ACK's the packets.
?
If the Kantronics is a digipeater (my preference) then it remains silent except to ID, beacons, and when it receives something to be repeated.
The disadvantage is that the packet is sent by the origin, is repeated by the Kantronics, then is ACK'd by the destination, which has to then be sent back to and repeated by the Kantronics all the way back to the origin for the packet to be considered delivered.
This method results in minimal air time.
?
?
If you are in a sparcely populated area then the first scenario would work.
If you are in an area with even a small number of packet stations then you might get complaints about the amount of traffic heard.
?
?
?
?
--
73,
Mark, N5MDT
Montgomery, Texas
?
?
?
|
Re: Need Advice: RF Only Forwarding
Tnx for the response, Jeff. If using scenario 2, yes the link would be dedicated, probably on 220. Station B only has a tri-bander: 2 meters, 220 and 440. So, a NVIS experiment won't work. Both stations are a solid S-9 to the mountain.
?
OK. Will keep you updated. Looks like Mark posted some info too...
Tnx es 73 de
Chris?ww2bsa
On 03/04/2025 6:22 PM EST Jeff KP3FT via groups.io <kp3ft@...> wrote:
?
?
Hi Chris,
My opinion is K-Net since it's good for node-broadcasting and pretty sure for forwarding, And Scenario 2 with backbones for sure. You'd need a second radio at the mountaintop site for the backbone freq. The forwarding script I'm not sure about; K-Net is Netrom-like and does link with BPQ but I don't know the full details on the limitations. In Puerto Rico the network is almost exclusively BPQ, but there are a couple K-Net nodes linked in.
Is using HF NVIS a possibility there? If the stations on either side of the mountain are close , then NVIS would make the mountain disappear, eliminating the need for the mountaintop node as the middle-man. The ACDS sections of HF allow high baudrates now, so I imagine a 600-baud, 1200-baud or maybe even 2400-baud standard AX25 AFSK signal would work as a backbone since they are still within the now FCC-legal bandwidth (depending on the quality of the signal). There's also the IL2P variation of AX25 which is supposed to have better performance, which Direwolf and Soundmodem both have, besides the Nino TNC..
Also, for a backbone, ARDOP or VARA would work really well since the two stations would be a dedicated link only between them (ARDOP and VARA only allow one connection at a time).
It would be a cool experiment for sure to see how well NVIS worked between the stations especially of they're pretty close. NVIS refracts not only from the F-layers but also the E-layer. For whatever reason, a lot of NVIS documentation doesn't say much about the E-layer, probably because E-layer skip isn't as strong as F-layer, but I have seen it mentioned in a couple docs and I've seen it work. The further the stations are apart, the less strong the NVIS signal from F and E layers will be usually, since the signal has to pass thru more D-layer.
On Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at 05:16:28 PM EST, Chris Lance WW2BSA <ww2bsa@...> wrote:
?
?
Need Advice:
I'm setting up 2 RF only BPQ nodes that are not within RF range of each other. (Please see diagram below.) However, they each can access a node on a mountain between them. The node is a Kantronics? V9.1. In Scenario 1, forwarding would be done during sleep hours to avoid tying up the user channel. In Scenario 2, the data link would be 24/7.
?
- Kantronics has a KNet, KA-Node, and a simple Digipeater? Which type of node do you think would play well with BPQ for forwarding?
- What would the forwarding scripts look like between both stations via the node in each scenario?
- I'm curious to hear member comments on the pros and cons for each scenario.
Thank you!
73 de Chris WW2BSA
|
Re: BPQ Kiss AX25 Bridge Testing
There is no urgent need for this it is just me playing so whenever you get around to it is fine. I'll keep experimenting in the meantime. Thanks John.
73 de Rich WA3WLH
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 3/4/25 15:32, John G8BPQ via groups.io wrote: Ok, Thanks.
I'll be away for a few days but will look at it what I get back.
73, John
On 04/03/2025 18:23, Rich Sahlender via groups.io wrote:
PS... I completely forgot that when using QTT in tabbed mode while connected with a bpq node via an FBB port the RF ports do not appear as an option for monitoring until AFTER the initial monitor tab connect... so if it helps the attached zip is take2 showing both RF ports monitored simultaneously within the same monitor tab.
On 3/4/25 11:33, Rich Sahlender via groups.io wrote:
Back at it... the attached zip includes the following files.
70cm-between-bridge-and-wlh7.txt - using linbpq status command to demonstrate good packet timing between the linbpq bridge system 70cm port and my primary home QTH node. Note that since my previous post I loaned the Signalink I was using on the bridge system 70cm port and had to replace with an old h/w pre-MFJ TNCX but the timing still looks good. Note also FWIW that the -7 node uses a KPC3+ on its 70cm port.
10m-between-client-and-bridge.txt - using linbpq status command to demonstrate good packet timing between the 10m client QTT and QTSM with an IC705 and the -13 linbpq bridge system using QTSM and a FT817.
10m-qtsm-bridged-to-wlh7.txt - the 10m client QTSM view of a linbpq status while bridged to my home node.
bridgenode-10m-listen.txt - a bpq listen view of the bridge nodes 10m port while bridge is active.
bridgenode-70cm-listen.txt - a bpq listen view of the bridge nodes 70cm port while bridge is active.
Let me know what else might help if needed.
Tnx es 73 de Rich WA3WLH
|
Re: Need Advice: RF Only Forwarding
?
Ok, here are your considerations.
?
Kantronics in KA-Node is creating a NetRom link, if i am not mistaken, and creates a LOT of traffic.? I avoid this at all costs.? But that is just me in my county and my preferences.
The advantage is that a message send from one use to the other as the packets are sent they are ACK'd by the KA-node and that's that.? Then the KA-node transmit to destination and the destination ACK's the packets.
?
If the Kantronics is a digipeater (my preference) then it remains silent except to ID, beacons, and when it receives something to be repeated.
The disadvantage is that the packet is sent by the origin, is repeated by the Kantronics, then is ACK'd by the destination, which has to then be sent back to and repeated by the Kantronics all the way back to the origin for the packet to be considered delivered.
This method results in minimal air time.
?
?
If you are in a sparcely populated area then the first scenario would work.
If you are in an area with even a small number of packet stations then you might get complaints about the amount of traffic heard.
?
?
?
?
--
73,
Mark, N5MDT
Montgomery, Texas
?
?
?
|
Re: Need Advice: RF Only Forwarding
Hi Chris,
My opinion is K-Net since it's good for node-broadcasting and pretty sure for forwarding, And Scenario 2 with backbones for sure. You'd need a second radio at the mountaintop site for the backbone freq. The forwarding script I'm not sure about; K-Net is Netrom-like and does link with BPQ but I don't know the full details on the limitations. In Puerto Rico the network is almost exclusively BPQ, but there are a couple K-Net nodes linked in.
Is using HF NVIS a possibility there? If the stations on either side of the mountain are close , then NVIS would make the mountain disappear, eliminating the need for the mountaintop node as the middle-man. The ACDS sections of HF allow high baudrates now, so I imagine a 600-baud, 1200-baud or maybe even 2400-baud standard AX25 AFSK signal would work as a backbone since they are still within the now FCC-legal bandwidth (depending on the quality of the signal). There's also the IL2P variation of AX25 which is supposed to have better performance, which Direwolf and Soundmodem both have, besides the Nino TNC..
Also, for a backbone, ARDOP or VARA would work really well since the two stations would be a dedicated link only between them (ARDOP and VARA only allow one connection at a time).
It would be a cool experiment for sure to see how well NVIS worked between the stations especially of they're pretty close. NVIS refracts not only from the F-layers but also the E-layer. For whatever reason, a lot of NVIS documentation doesn't say much about the E-layer, probably because E-layer skip isn't as strong as F-layer, but I have seen it mentioned in a couple docs and I've seen it work. The further the stations are apart, the less strong the NVIS signal from F and E layers will be usually, since the signal has to pass thru more D-layer.
On Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at 05:16:28 PM EST, Chris Lance WW2BSA <ww2bsa@...> wrote:
Need Advice: I'm setting up 2 RF only BPQ nodes that are not within RF range of each other. (Please see diagram below.) However, they each can access a node on a mountain between them. The node is a Kantronics? V9.1. In Scenario 1, forwarding would be done during sleep hours to avoid tying up the user channel. In Scenario 2, the data link would be 24/7. ? - Kantronics has a KNet, KA-Node, and a simple Digipeater? Which type of node do you think would play well with BPQ for forwarding?
- What would the forwarding scripts look like between both stations via the node in each scenario?
- I'm curious to hear member comments on the pros and cons for each scenario.
Thank you! 73 de Chris WW2BSA
|
Need Advice: RF Only Forwarding
Need Advice:
I'm setting up 2 RF only BPQ nodes that are not within RF range of each other. (Please see diagram below.) However, they each can access a node on a mountain between them. The node is a Kantronics? V9.1. In Scenario 1, forwarding would be done during sleep hours to avoid tying up the user channel. In Scenario 2, the data link would be 24/7.
?
- Kantronics has a KNet, KA-Node, and a simple Digipeater? Which type of node do you think would play well with BPQ for forwarding?
- What would the forwarding scripts look like between both stations via the node in each scenario?
- I'm curious to hear member comments on the pros and cons for each scenario.
Thank you!
73 de Chris WW2BSA
|
Re: Need Advice: MAP through an Internet T-Mobile, Verizon, etc. "can"
To: Lee and Mark,
?
Thank you for your comments. I am excited to report that you advice helped with my experiment and was able to MAP a T-Mobile internet "can" with the TCP-MATER and TCP-SLAVE commands.
?
There are some locations without internet that this setup may come in handy.
?
73 de Chris
ww2bsa
On 02/28/2025 2:29 PM EST Chris Lance WW2BSA <ww2bsa@...> wrote:
?
?
Thank you to Lee and Mark for taking the time to respond.?
Once I digest the info and work on it and get back to you with my results.
73 de Chris
ww2bsa
On 02/28/2025 1:27 PM EST Lee Bengston via groups.io <kilo5dat@...> wrote:
?
?
?
?
The TCP-MASTER goes on the node that you have no real control over. WW2BSA-5
TCP-MASTER goes in WW2BSA-5 and TCP-SLAVE goes in WW2BSA-7
?
You will nedd to port forward port 10200, protocol TCP at WW2BSA-7
?
Yes, those items match up with my response.
?
Lee K5DAT
|
I have tryed this config without success, no answer when pinging 192.168.0.114 from the client.
Probably missed a lot....
?
Client bpq node SG0YOS without internet connection? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Server bpq node SE0YOS with internet connection
The node has wifi AP and I connect the pc via wifi? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?eth0 ip address 192.168.0.114
wan0 has address 192.168.5.1, no address on eth0
config:? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? config:
IPGATEWAY? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? IPGateway
Adapter wlan0? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Adapter eth0? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??
44ENCAP 192.168.1.10? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?44ENCAP 192.168.1.10? ? ? ? ?
IPAddr 192.168.5.1? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? IPAddr 192.168.0.114? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
IPNetmask 255.255.255.0? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?IPNetmask 255.255.255.0? ? ?
IPPorts 3? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? # Nino tnc on port 3? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? IPPort 3? ? ? ? # Nino tnc on port 3? ?
ARP 192.168.0.114 SE0YOS 3 D? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ARP 192.168.5.1 SG0YOS 3 D??
****? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ****
?
73
Thomas? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
?
|
Re: LINBPQ Fails to start with message: Active: failed (Result: start-limit-hit)
Disable the service and run linbpq manually. Then you will see any
error messages.
73,
John
On 04/03/2025 20:03, Heber Soto, NP4JN
via groups.io wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I am configuring linbpq on a Pi Zero W, when it was installed
the default config BPQ was running so I started to configure it.
?
After the reboot in didn't have BPQ available? and I am
seeing the following error:
?
?$ systemctl status linbpq.service
¡ñ linbpq.service
? ? ?Loaded: loaded (/etc/systemd/system/linbpq.service;
enabled; vendor preset: enabled)
? ? ?Active: failed (Result: start-limit-hit) since Tue
2025-03-04 12:35:30 AST; 3h 20min ago
? ? Process: 621 ExecStart=/bin/bash /home/pi/linbpq/runbpq
(code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS)
? ?Main PID: 621 (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS)
? ? ? ? CPU: 115ms
Mar 04 12:35:30 M1DOG systemd[1]: linbpq.service: Scheduled
restart job, restart counter is at 5.
Mar 04 12:35:30 M1DOG systemd[1]: Stopped linbpq.service.
Mar 04 12:35:30 M1DOG systemd[1]: linbpq.service: Start
request repeated too quickly.
Mar 04 12:35:30 M1DOG systemd[1]: linbpq.service: Failed with
result 'start-limit-hit'.
Mar 04 12:35:30 M1DOG systemd[1]: Failed to start
linbpq.service.
?
I was using linbpq 6.0.24.65
upgrade it to 6.0.24.66 but the same result.
?
Any help would be appriciated.
?
Heber
NP4JN
|
Re: BPQ Kiss AX25 Bridge Testing
Ok, Thanks.
I'll be away for a few days but will look at it what I get back.
73, John
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 04/03/2025 18:23, Rich Sahlender via groups.io wrote: PS... I completely forgot that when using QTT in tabbed mode while connected with a bpq node via an FBB port the RF ports do not appear as an option for monitoring until AFTER the initial monitor tab connect... so if it helps the attached zip is take2 showing both RF ports monitored simultaneously within the same monitor tab.
On 3/4/25 11:33, Rich Sahlender via groups.io wrote:
Back at it... the attached zip includes the following files.
70cm-between-bridge-and-wlh7.txt - using linbpq status command to demonstrate good packet timing between the linbpq bridge system 70cm port and my primary home QTH node. Note that since my previous post I loaned the Signalink I was using on the bridge system 70cm port and had to replace with an old h/w pre-MFJ TNCX but the timing still looks good. Note also FWIW that the -7 node uses a KPC3+ on its 70cm port.
10m-between-client-and-bridge.txt - using linbpq status command to demonstrate good packet timing between the 10m client QTT and QTSM with an IC705 and the -13 linbpq bridge system using QTSM and a FT817.
10m-qtsm-bridged-to-wlh7.txt - the 10m client QTSM view of a linbpq status while bridged to my home node.
bridgenode-10m-listen.txt - a bpq listen view of the bridge nodes 10m port while bridge is active.
bridgenode-70cm-listen.txt - a bpq listen view of the bridge nodes 70cm port while bridge is active.
Let me know what else might help if needed.
Tnx es 73 de Rich WA3WLH
|
LINBPQ Fails to start with message: Active: failed (Result: start-limit-hit)
I am configuring linbpq on a Pi Zero W, when it was installed the default config BPQ was running so I started to configure it.
?
After the reboot in didn't have BPQ available? and I am seeing the following error:
?
?$ systemctl status linbpq.service
¡ñ linbpq.service
? ? ?Loaded: loaded (/etc/systemd/system/linbpq.service; enabled; vendor preset: enabled)
? ? ?Active: failed (Result: start-limit-hit) since Tue 2025-03-04 12:35:30 AST; 3h 20min ago
? ? Process: 621 ExecStart=/bin/bash /home/pi/linbpq/runbpq (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS)
? ?Main PID: 621 (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS)
? ? ? ? CPU: 115ms
Mar 04 12:35:30 M1DOG systemd[1]: linbpq.service: Scheduled restart job, restart counter is at 5.
Mar 04 12:35:30 M1DOG systemd[1]: Stopped linbpq.service.
Mar 04 12:35:30 M1DOG systemd[1]: linbpq.service: Start request repeated too quickly.
Mar 04 12:35:30 M1DOG systemd[1]: linbpq.service: Failed with result 'start-limit-hit'.
Mar 04 12:35:30 M1DOG systemd[1]: Failed to start linbpq.service.
?
I was using linbpq 6.0.24.65 upgrade it to 6.0.24.66 but the same result.
?
Any help would be appriciated.
?
Heber
NP4JN
|
Re: BPQ Kiss AX25 Bridge Testing
PS... I completely forgot that when using QTT in tabbed mode while connected with a bpq node via an FBB port the RF ports do not appear as an option for monitoring until AFTER the initial monitor tab connect... so if it helps the attached zip is take2 showing both RF ports monitored simultaneously within the same monitor tab.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 3/4/25 11:33, Rich Sahlender via groups.io wrote: Back at it... the attached zip includes the following files.
70cm-between-bridge-and-wlh7.txt - using linbpq status command to demonstrate good packet timing between the linbpq bridge system 70cm port and my primary home QTH node. Note that since my previous post I loaned the Signalink I was using on the bridge system 70cm port and had to replace with an old h/w pre-MFJ TNCX but the timing still looks good. Note also FWIW that the -7 node uses a KPC3+ on its 70cm port.
10m-between-client-and-bridge.txt - using linbpq status command to demonstrate good packet timing between the 10m client QTT and QTSM with an IC705 and the -13 linbpq bridge system using QTSM and a FT817.
10m-qtsm-bridged-to-wlh7.txt - the 10m client QTSM view of a linbpq status while bridged to my home node.
bridgenode-10m-listen.txt - a bpq listen view of the bridge nodes 10m port while bridge is active.
bridgenode-70cm-listen.txt - a bpq listen view of the bridge nodes 70cm port while bridge is active.
Let me know what else might help if needed.
Tnx es 73 de Rich WA3WLH
|
And so a pair of NPR modems (with TRX built in!!) on UHf should work.
I built mine from the gitHub repo and saved a little $$$. They do 56K up to 500Kbps depending upon how they are configured.?
Mark / NI2O
On 3/4/25 10:58, Bob-va3rjs via
wrote:
For me no, we don¡¯t have clear line of sight to our repeater site, so in needs to be uhf or vhf.
Bob
On 3/4/25 10:01, Chuck Gelm wrote:
Near
line of sight?
3s, Chuck
|
Re: BPQ Kiss AX25 Bridge Testing
Back at it... the attached zip includes the following files.
70cm-between-bridge-and-wlh7.txt - using linbpq status command to demonstrate good packet timing between the linbpq bridge system 70cm port and my primary home QTH node. Note that since my previous post I loaned the Signalink I was using on the bridge system 70cm port and had to replace with an old h/w pre-MFJ TNCX but the timing still looks good. Note also FWIW that the -7 node uses a KPC3+ on its 70cm port.
10m-between-client-and-bridge.txt - using linbpq status command to demonstrate good packet timing between the 10m client QTT and QTSM with an IC705 and the -13 linbpq bridge system using QTSM and a FT817.
10m-qtsm-bridged-to-wlh7.txt - the 10m client QTSM view of a linbpq status while bridged to my home node.
bridgenode-10m-listen.txt - a bpq listen view of the bridge nodes 10m port while bridge is active.
bridgenode-70cm-listen.txt - a bpq listen view of the bridge nodes 70cm port while bridge is active.
Let me know what else might help if needed.
Tnx es 73 de Rich WA3WLH
|
Robby
Jeff KP3FT
Mark Phillips