Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

[John D. Hays]

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: j...@hays.org 
Email: j...@hays.org 

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

[Chris Fowler]

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.

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

[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 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 MAST

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

[Woodrick, Ed]

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@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

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

[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."... 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

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

[Nate Duehr]

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?

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

[Tony Langdon]

>
>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

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

[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 [mailto:dstar_digi...@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

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

[Adrian]

> 
> 
> > 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

[DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

[john_ke5c]

> 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

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

[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 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_digi...@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
n...@natetech.com<mailto:nate%40natetech.com>

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

[Gary Pearce KN4AQ]

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
kn...@arvideonews.com
919-380-9944
www.ARVideoNews.com  

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

[John D. Hays]

interpreter...@gmail.com 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: j...@hays.org 
Email: j...@hays.org 

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

[interpretercat]

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

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

[Tony Langdon]

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

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

[Nate Duehr]

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
n...@natetech.com

[DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

[ki4umx]

--- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, "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
>
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

[DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

[Nicholas]

--- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, Tony Langdon  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

[DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

[Nicholas]

--- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, Nate Duehr  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