From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Rivenburg Subject: Re: YAM/Tekk help Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:57:38 -0600 Message-ID: <4382C162.7090202@onr.com> References: <20051116151748.GN3241@goldengate.vpizza.org> Reply-To: ad5oo@arrl.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20051116151748.GN3241@goldengate.vpizza.org> Sender: linux-hams-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: linux-hams@vger.kernel.org Cc: Jim Meehan Jim Meehan wrote: > Problem 1: > > If I ping from either side, that machine sends out ARP requests endlessly. Just a quick sanity check: did you set the ping interval to something higher than 3 seconds? The round trip time for radio pings is about 3 seconds, and if you use something less (like the default of 1 second) the pingee will have a hard time getting an out an arp reply between the pingers requests. > Problem 2: > > The link is not reliable. Right now, I've got the txdelay set to 300 ms on > both sides, and I'm still getting 3 or 4 percent packet loss with 64 byte > pings. 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. You would actually be better off with 1200 baud since that *is* implemented correctly in the bulk of the hardware out there. Fewer retries = faster throughput. If you're really adventursome, give the 4800bps psk soundmodem a try. It is *much* more reliable than 9600 baud, and about 6x faster than 1200 baud (taking into account a longer mtu with fewer retries). 73 AD5OO