From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ralf Baechle DL5RB Subject: Re: YAM/Tekk help Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:01:52 +0000 Message-ID: <20051123140152.GC2699@linux-mips.org> References: <20051116151748.GN3241@goldengate.vpizza.org> <4382C162.7090202@onr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4382C162.7090202@onr.com> Sender: linux-hams-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ad5oo@arrl.net Cc: linux-hams@vger.kernel.org, Jim Meehan On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 12:57:38AM -0600, David Rivenburg wrote: > Only 3-4%? That's actually pretty good. Reliable 9600 baud packet is > practically nonexistant without using hardware specifically designed for > 9600 baud baseband fsk. I am not aware of any commercial radio or tnc > that is. They may *try* to do 9600, and even have modest success with > it, but they are flawed from the start and cannot be counted on for > reliable operation. I've made pretty positive experience with the PR-430 radio (available through www.wimo.com). They're not cheap but the combination of a TNC and a radio virtually eleminates the delicate adjustment procedure otherwise needed for 9k6 and the 12ms RX -> TX and 10ms TX -> RX switching times means this radio isn't a hazard to the whole network. Downside - the radio is running a variant of the 6pack protocol that needs extensive changes to the Linux 6pack driver; while I do have such a driver it's not yet in the shape for going to kernel.org ... Ralf