Today, I decided to get cuddly with the relevant RFCs and see if I could adapt them into something that would work for AX.25.  The following roughly describes how one might stuff IPv6 datagrams into AX.25.

Much of this is heavily influenced by RFC-4944 and RFC-6282, the latter of which looks to be the heart-and-soul of Thread.

We have a mechanism by which an AX.25 call+SSID can be losslessly mapped to a 48-bit MAC address. This is built on Radix-50 and can work as a stand-in for the EUI-48. The pseudo EUI-48 procedure mentioned in section 6 of the RFC-4944 standard is not required.

An EUI-64 is generated from an EUI-48 by chopping the EUI-48 in half and inserting the bytes `ff:fe` in the middle. So the EUI-48:

`00:11:22:33:44:55`

becomes the following EUI-64:

`00:11:22:ff:fe:33:44:55`

SLAAC therefore will work the same way it does for Ethernet.

# Frame format

## 1. AX.25 UI Frame header

Size: (17 + (D*7) bytes, where D is the number of digipeaters being used

• PID = 1100 0101 (tentative) IPv6
• Control = 0000 0011
• Frame type: UI, P/F = 0 (final)
• Must contain source and destination AX.25 callsigns, may contain up to 8 digipeater AX.25 callsigns.

### For a direct station-to-station contact:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
AX.25 Flag (0x7e) Destination AX.25 Call+SSID (7 bytes)
Source AX.25 Call+SSID (7 bytes)
AX.25 Control
AX.25 PID AX.25 UI payload here

or for contact via a few digipeaters:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
AX.25 Flag (0x7e) Destination AX.25 Call+SSID (7 bytes)
Source AX.25 Call+SSID (7 bytes)
Digi 1 Call+SSID
Digi 2 Call+SSID
AX.25 Control AX.25 PID AX.25 UI payload here

To be used when two stations are not able to directly communicate, or when multicasting.

In this scenario, the AX.25 frame source and destination indicate the addresses of the directly-communicating nodes (e.g. source and digipeater, intermediate digipeaters, or digipeater and destination), and the fields given here will be the addresses of the source and destination AX.25 stations.

e.g. sending from `VK4MSL-0` to `VK4MDL-9` via
`VK4RZB-0` and `VK4RZA-0`:

1. First transmission:
• AX.25 Src: `VK4MSL-0`
• AX.25 Dst: `VK4RZB-0`
• Mesh Src: `VK4MSL-0`
• Mesh Dst: `VK4MDL-9`
• Hops: 7
2. Intermediate hop:
• AX.25 Src: `VK4RZB-0`
• AX.25 Dst: `VK4RZA-0`
• Mesh Src: `VK4MSL-0`
• Mesh Dst: `VK4MDL-9`
• Hops: 6
3. Final delivery:
• AX.25 Src: `VK4RZA-0`
• AX.25 Dst: `VK4MDL-9`
• Mesh Src: `VK4MSL-0`
• Mesh Dst: `VK4MDL-9`
• Hops: 5

Unlike 802.15.4, we do not have 16-bit short addresses. Since these bits would otherwise always be set to 0, we will use these to provide a 6-bit “hops left” field. We shall use the value 63 (0x3f) to indicate when there are 63 or more hops remaining.

We will use the raw 48-bit addresses here. In keeping with amateur radio conventions, the source and destinations are flipped compared to RFC-4944.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
1 0 Hops Left Dest Address

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
0 1 `6LP_BC0` Sequence Number

To be used when a IPv6 datagram is greater than L bytes, where L may be defined to be between 64 and 216 bytes.

This part is identical to that of RFC-4944 (section 5.3).  I’ll come back to this bit.

## 5. IPv6 datagram

This can be encoded in a number of ways depending on requirements:

### 5.1. Raw IPv6 datagram

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
0 1 `6LP_IPV6` IPv6 Datagram (with payload)

`6LP_IPV6` is the value 0x01, as per RFC-4944. The IPv6 datagram is encoded as per RFC-2460, and includes its payload.

The AX.25 frame is finished off with the frame-check sequence.

### 5.2. Compressed IPv6 datagram

In this format, the datagram fields are compressed, either through making static assumptions, or by deriving them from things such as the AX.25 header, or a previously agreed-to context.

The first field in such payloads is the `6LP_IPHC` field:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
0 1 1 `6LP_IPHC` with `CID=1` Context ID Data follows

or without the context ID

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
0 1 1 `6LP_IPHC` with `CID=0` Data follows

The `6LP_IPHC` field is a 13-bit field, optionally followed by a context ID extension byte. The bit allocations are as follows:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
`TF` `NH` `HLIM` `CID` `SAC` `SAM` `M` `DAC` `DAM`
• (MSB) 0-1: `TF` Traffic Class, Flow Label. See 5.2.1 below.
• 2: `NH` Next Header encoding
• =0: Given explicitly
• =1: Encoded using `6LP_NHC`
• 3-4: `HLIM` Hop Limit
• =00: Given explicitly
• =01: is set to 1
• =10: is set to 64
• =11: is set to 255
• 5: `CID` Context Identifier Extension
• =0: No `CID` byte follows
• =1: A `CID` byte follows
• 6-8: `SAC` Source Address Compression / `SAM` Mode
• =000: No compression applied, whole address given
• =001: Prefix is link-local prefix, remaining bits are given.
• =x10: Not used in 6LoWHAM (we don’t support 16-bit addresses)
• =011: Prefix is link-local, figure the rest out from the source address in the AX.25 header.
• =100: Unspecified address `::`
• =101: See the context for the prefix, remaining bits are given.
• =111: Figure out the address from the AX.25 header and context.
• (LSB) 9-12: `M` Multicast, `DAC` Destination Address Compression
`DAM` Mode

• =0000: No compression, not multicast, whole address given
• =0001: Prefix is link-local prefix, remaining bits are given. Not multicast.
• =xx10: Not used in 6LoWHAM (we don’t support 16-bit addresses)
• =0011: Prefix is link-local, figure the rest out from the destination address in the AX.25 header. Not multicast.
• =0100: Reserved
• =0101: See the context for the prefix, remaining bits are given. Not multicast.
• =0111: Figure out the address from the AX.25 header and context. Not multicast.
• =1001: 48-bits of multicast address given, fill in the blanks: `ff__::00__:____:____`.
• =1010: 32-bits of multicast address given, fill in the blanks: `ff__::00__:____`.
• =1011: 8-bits of multicast address given, fill in the blanks: `ff02::00__`.
• =1100: 48-bits RFC-3306/RFC-3956 address, `ff__:__LL:PPPP:PPPP:PPPP:PPPP:____:____` where `P` and `L` come from the context.
• =1101: Reserved
• =1110: Reserved
• =1111: Reserved

The context ID extension byte has the following format:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
`SCI` `DCI`
• (MSB) 0-3: Source Context Identifier
• (LSB) 4-7: Destination Context Identifier

These two sub-fields indicate which specific context is being used to fill in the blanks.

#### 5.2.1: Traffic Class and Flow Label

These may be partially or completely omitted depending on the `TF` setting in the previous field.

• `TF`=00:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
`ECN` `DCSP` 0 0 0 0 Flow Label
• `TF`=01:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
`ECN` 0 0 Flow Label
• `TF`=10:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
`ECN` `DCSP`
• `TF`=11: Flow label, `ECN` and `DCSP` are set to 0.

If `6LP_NHC` is not explicitly enabled, the next header byte will appear next.

#### 5.2.3: Hop Limit.

Again, if not explicitly defined in the `6LP_IPHC` header, the hop-limit byte will appear next.

The format here is determined by the values of `SAC`/`SAM`:

• 000: Entire IPv6 address, 16 bytes given here.
• x01: Last 8-bytes of the address given here
• For all other values, the source address is omitted.

The format here is determined by the values of `M`/`DAC`/`DAM`:

• x000: Entire IPv6 address, 16 bytes given here.
• 0x01: Last 8-bytes of the address given here.
• 1001: 6-bytes of address given here, fill-in-the-blanks.
• 1010: 4-bytes of address given here, fill-in-the-blanks.
• 1011: Last byte of address given here, fill-in-the-blank.
• 1100: 6-bytes of address given here, fill-in-the-blanks.
• For all other values, the destination address is omitted.

This is used to encode selected IPv6 extensions or L4 protocol headers.

A select number of IPv6 extensions may be encoded by replacing the usual “Next Header” byte with the following:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 1 0 `EID` `N`

where `EID` (bits 4-6) is one of:

• =0 IPv6 Hop-By-Hop options
• =1 IPv6 Routing
• =2 IPv6 Fragment
• =3 IPv6 Destination Options
• =4 IPv6 Mobility

and `N` (bit 7) indicates whether the header’s payload is followed by another 6LowPAN Next Header, or a regular IPv6 Next Header (with its “Next Header” byte). For `EID`=7, `N` MUST be 0.

For payloads other than UDP packets, these should be inserted into the AX.25 payload as-is following the extensions.

UDP packets with uncompressed headers should also be inserted
in this manner.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 L-15 L-14 L-13 L-12 L-11 L-10 L-9 L-8 L-7 L-6 L-5 L-4 L-3 L-2 L-1 L
1 1 1 1 0 `C` `P` Source Address Destination Address Checksum (unless `C`=1)
• (MSB): bits 0-4: Compressed UDP header marker. Literal 11110₂
• Bit 5: `C` Compressed UDP checksum
• 0= UDP checksum is given (recommended value)
• 1= UDP checksum is omitted
• Bits 6-7: `P` Ports
• 00=Both source and destination addresses are
given in full

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Source Port (16-bits) Destination Port (16-bits)
• 01=Source port is given in full, Least significant 8-bits of destination given, destination port is 0xff00-0xffff (65280-65535)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Source Port (16-bits) Destination Port (8-bits)
• 10=Destination port is given in full, Least significant 8-bits of source given, source port is 0xff00-0xffff (65280-65535)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Source Port (8-bits) Destination Port (16-bits)
• 11=Only least significant 4-bits of source and destination ports are given. Port LSB range is 0xf0b0-0xf0bf (61616-61631)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Source Port (4-bits) Destination Port (4-bits)

The `C` bit should only be set if the upper-level application asks for it. Whilst 802.15.4 does its own CRC as does AX.25, the field is mandatory in UDP and the recommendation is to only drop it if the application says it’s okay.

Having discussed the idea with a few people, both on the linux-hams mailing list and off-list, I’m starting to formalise a few plans for how this might work.

One option is to augment existing software stacks and inter-operate not just over-the-air, but at an API level.  Brisbane WICEN have a fleet of TNCs all running TheNet X1J, which was a popular Net/ROM software stack for TAPR TNC2-compatible TNCs in the early 90s.  Slowly, these are being replaced with Raspberry Pis equipped with Pi-TNCs and running LinBPQ.

These two inter-operate quite well, and the plan looks to be, to slowly upgrade all the sites to LinBPQ nodes.

Now, 6LoWHAM on TNCs that are nearly as old as I am just isn’t going to fly, but if I can link up to LinBPQ, this alternate protocol can be packaged up and installed along-side LinBPQ in an unobtrusive manner.

There are two things I need to be able to do:

• Send and receive raw AX.25 frames
• Read the routing table from LinBPQ

# Sending and receiving raw frames

Looking at the interfaces that LinBPQ (and BPQ32) offers, the most promising option looks to be the AGWPE-compatible interface.  The protocol is essentially a TCP link over which the AX.25 frames are encapsulated and sent.

There’s a good description of the protocol here, and looking at the sources for LinBPQ (third link from the bottom of the page), it looks as if the necessary bits of the protocol are present to send and receive raw frames.

In particular, to send raw UI frames, I need to send these as ‘M’ (direct) or ‘V’ frames (via digipeater), and to receive them, I need to make use of the monitoring mode (‘m’ frame).

This, is where things will be “fun”.  The AGWPE interface does offer a “heard” frame, which can report on what stations have been heard.  This I think isn’t going to be the holy grail I’m after, although it’ll be a start, maybe.

Alternatively, a way around this might be to “eavesdrop” on the Net/ROM routing frames.  In monitor mode, I should theoretically hear all traffic, including these Net/ROM beacons.  It’s not as nice as being able to simply read LinBPQ’s routing table, but at least I don’t have to generate the Net/ROM messages.

The other way would be to connect to the terminal interface on LinBPQ, and use the NODES command, parsing that.  Ugly, but it’ll get me by.  On that same page is NRR… which looks to be similar in function to TCP/IP’s traceroute.  The feature is also supported by JNOS 2.0, which was released in 2006.  Not old by packet radio standards, but old enough.

# Identifying if a remote station supports 6LoWHAM

Now, this is the tricky bit.  Identifying an immediate neighbour is easy enough, you can simply send an ICMPv6 neighbour solicitation message and see if they respond.  In fact, I’m thinking that could be the immediate first step.  There’s no support for service discovery as such, but nodes could advertise an “alias” (just one).

The best bet may be a suck-it-and-see approach.  We should be able to “digipeat” via intermediate nodes as if they were plain L2 AX.25 digipeaters, thus if we have a reason to contact a given node (i.e. there’s unicast traffic queued up to be sent there), we can just try routing an AX.25 frame with a ICMPv6 neighbour solicitation and see if we get a neighbour advertisement.

This carries a risk though: a station may not react well to unknown traffic and may try to parse the message as something it is not.  Thus for unicast, it is not a fail-safe method.

Multicast traffic however will be a challenge, and much of IPv6 relies on multicast.  The Net/ROM station will not know anything about this, as it simply wasn’t a concept back in the day.

For subnets like ff03::1, which on Thread networks usually means “all full-function Thread devices”, this could be sent via non-6LoWHAM digipeaters by broadcasting via that digipeater to the AX.25 station alias “6LHMC” (6LoWHAM Multicast).

This could be used to provide tunnelling of multicast traffic where a route to a station has been discovered via Net/ROM and we need to safely test whether the station can in fact understand 6LoWHAM traffic without the risk of crashing it.

I think the next step might be to look at how a normal IPv6 node would “register” interest in a multicast group so that routers between it and the sender of such a group know where to forward traffic.  IPv6 does have such a mechanism, and I think understanding how multicast traverses subnets is going to be key to making this work.

So earlier, I had mentioned that it’s really not desirable to have ARQ (automatic repeat request) on a link carrying TCP datagrams.  My comment is based on this observation:

http://sites.inka.de/bigred/devel/tcp-tcp.html

In that article, the discussion is about one TCP connection being tunnelled over another TCP connection.  Basically it comes down to the lower layer buffering and re-sending the TCP datagrams just as the upper layer gives up on hearing a reply and re-sends its own attempt.

Now, end-to-end ACKs have been done on long chains of AX.25 networks before.  It’s generally accepted to be an unreliable mechanism.  UDP for sure can benefit, but then many protocols that use UDP already do their own handling of lost messages.  CoAP for instance does its own ARQ, as does TFTP.

Gerald Wagenknecht, Markus Anwander and Torsten Braun discuss some of the impacts of this on a 802.15.4 network in their thesis “Hop-to-Hop Reliability in IP-based Wireless Sensor Networks – a Cross-Layer Approach“.  In this, they talk about a variant of TCP called TSS: TCP Support for Sensor Networks.  This was discussed at depth in a thesis by Adam Dunkels, “Towards TCP/IP for Wireless Sensor Networks“.

This latter document, was apparently the inspiration for 6LoWPAN.  Section 4.4.3 discusses the approaches to handling ARQ in TCP.  Section 9.6 goes into further detail on how ARQ might be handled elsewhere in the network.

Thankfully in our case, it’s only the network that’s constrained, the nodes themselves will be no smaller than a Raspberry Pi which would have held its own against the PC that Adam Dunkels used to write that thesis!

In short, it looks as if just routing IP packets is not going to cut it, we need to actually handle the TCP side of things as well.  As for other protocols like CoAP, I guess the answer is be patient.  The timeout settings defined in RFC-7252 are usually tuneable, and it may be desirable to back those off just a little for use over AX.25.

So, doing some more digging here.  One question people might ask is what kind of applications would I use over this network?

Bear in mind that it’s running at 1200 baud!  If we use HTTP at all, tiny is the word!  No bloated images, and definitely no big heavy JavaScript frameworks like ReactJS, Angular, DoJo or JQuery.  You can forget watching Netflicks in 4k over this link.

HTTP really isn’t designed for low-bandwidth links, as Steve Netting demonstrated:

The page itself is bad enough, but even then, it’s loaded after a minute.  The real slow bit is the 20kB GIF.

So yeah, slow-scan television, the ability to send weather radar images over, that is something I was thinking of, but not like that!

```GET /qld/forecasts/brisbane.shtml?ref=hdr HTTP/1.1
Host: www.bom.gov.au
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:62.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/62.0
Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8
Accept-Language: en-AU,en-GB;q=0.8,en-US;q=0.5,en;q=0.3
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
Referer: http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDR664.loop.shtml
Connection: keep-alive
Pragma: no-cache
Cache-Control: no-cache

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Encoding: gzip
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Server: Apache
Vary: Accept-Encoding
Content-Length: 6321
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 10:56:12 GMT
Connection: keep-alive```

That request is 508 bytes and the response headers are 216 bytes.  It’d be inappropriate on 6LoWPAN as you’d be fragmenting that packet left right and centre in order to squeeze it into the 128-byte 802.15.4 frames.

In that video, ICMP echo requests were also demonstrated, and those weren’t bad!  Yes, a little slow, but workable.  So to me, it’s not the packet network that’s the problem, it’s just that something big like HTTP is just not appropriate for a 1200-baud radio link.

It might work on 9600 baud packet … maybe.  My Kantronics KPC3 doesn’t do 9600 baud over the air.

CoAP was designed for tight messages.  It is UDP based, so your TCP connection overhead disappears, and the “options” are encoded as individual bytes in many cases.  There are other UDP-based protocols that would work fine too, as well as older TCP protocols such as Telnet.

A request, and reply in CoAP look something like this:

```Hex dump of request:
00000000  40 01 00 01 3b 65 78 61  6d 70 6c 65 2e 63 6f 6d   @...;exa mple.com
00000010  81 63 03 52 46 77 11 3c                            .c.RFw.<

Hex dump of response:
00000000  60 45 00 01 c1 3c ff a1  1a 00 01 11 70 a1 01 a3   `E...<.. ....p...
00000010  04 18 64 02 6b 31 39 32  2e 31 36 38 2e 30 2e 31   ..d.k192 .168.0.1
00000020  03 64 65 74 68 30                                  .deth0```

Or in more human readable form:

```Request:
Constrained Application Protocol, Confirmable, GET, MID:1
01.. .... = Version: 1
..00 .... = Type: Confirmable (0)
.... 0000 = Token Length: 0
Code: GET (1)
Message ID: 1
Opt Name: #1: Uri-Host: example.com
Opt Desc: Type 3, Critical, Unsafe
0011 .... = Opt Delta: 3
.... 1011 = Opt Length: 11
Uri-Host: example.com
Opt Name: #2: Uri-Path: c
Opt Desc: Type 11, Critical, Unsafe
1000 .... = Opt Delta: 8
.... 0001 = Opt Length: 1
Uri-Path: c
Opt Name: #3: Uri-Path: RFw
Opt Desc: Type 11, Critical, Unsafe
0000 .... = Opt Delta: 0
.... 0011 = Opt Length: 3
Uri-Path: RFw
Opt Name: #4: Content-Format: application/cbor
Opt Desc: Type 12, Elective, Safe
0001 .... = Opt Delta: 1
.... 0001 = Opt Length: 1
Content-type: application/cbor
[Uri-Path: coap://example.com/c/RFw]

Response:
Constrained Application Protocol, Acknowledgement, 2.05 Content, MID:1
01.. .... = Version: 1
..10 .... = Type: Acknowledgement (2)
.... 0000 = Token Length: 0
Code: 2.05 Content (69)
Message ID: 1
Opt Name: #1: Content-Format: application/cbor
Opt Desc: Type 12, Elective, Safe
1100 .... = Opt Delta: 12
.... 0001 = Opt Length: 1
Content-type: application/cbor
End of options marker: 255
Concise Binary Object Representation
Map: (1 entries)
Unsigned Integer: 70000
Map: (1 entries)
...0 0001 = Unsigned Integer: 1
Map: (3 entries)
...0 0100 = Unsigned Integer: 4
Unsigned Integer: 100
...0 0010 = Unsigned Integer: 2
Text String: 192.168.0.1
...0 0011 = Unsigned Integer: 3
Text String: eth0
```

That there, also shows another tool to data packing: CBOR.  CBOR is basically binary JSON.  Just like JSON it is schemaless, it has objects, arrays, strings, booleans, nulls and numbers (CBOR differentiates between integers of various sizes and floats).  Unlike JSON, it is tight.  The CBOR blob in this response would look like this as JSON (in the most compact representation possible):

`{70000:{4:100,2:"192.168.0.1",3:"eth0"}}`

The entire exchange is 190 bytes, less than a quarter of the size of just the HTTP request alone.  I think that would work just fine over 1200 baud packet.  As a bonus, you can also multicast, try doing that with HTTP.

So you’d be writing higher-level services that would use this instead of JSON-REST interfaces.  There’s a growing number of libraries that can consume this sort of thing, and IoT is pushing that further.  I think it’s doable.

Now, on the routing front, I’ve been digging up a bit on Net/ROM.  Net/ROM is actually two parts, Net/ROM Level 3 does the routing and level 4 does the circuit switching.  It’s the “Level 3” bit we want.

Coming up with a definitive specification of the protocol has been a bit tough, it doesn’t help that there is a company called NetROM, but I did manage to find this document.  In a way, if I could make my software behave like a Net/ROM node, I could piggy-back off that to discover neighbours.  Thus this protocol would co-exist along side Net/ROM networks that may be completely oblivious to TCP/IP.

This is preferable to just re-inventing the wheel…yes I know non-circular wheels are so much fun!  Really, once Net/ROM L3 has figured out where everyone is, IP routing just becomes a matter of correctly addressing the AX.25 frame so the next hop receives the message.

VK4RZB at Mt. Coot-tha is one such node running TheNet.  Easy enough to do tests on as it’s a mere stone throw away from my home QTH.

There’s a little consideration to make about how to label the AX.25 frame.  Obviously, it’ll be a UI frame, but what PID field should I use?  My instinct suggests that I should just label it as “ARPA Internet Protocol”, since it is Internet Protocol traffic, just IPv6 instead of v4.  Not all the codes are taken though, 0xc9 is free, so I could be cheeky and use that instead.  If the idea takes off, we can talk with the TAPR then.

This is another brain dump of ideas.

So, part of me wants to consider the idea of using amateur radio as a transmission mechanism for 6LoWPAN.  The idea being that we use NET/ROM and AX.25 or similar schemes as a transport mechanism for delivering shortened IPv6 packets.  Over this, we can use standard TCP/IP programming to write applications.

Protocols designed for low-bandwidth constrained networks are ideal here, so things like CoAP where emphasis is placed on compact representation.  6LoWPAN normally runs over IEEE 802.15.4 which has a payload limit of 128 bytes.  AX.25 has a limit of 256 bytes, so is already doing better.

The thinking is that I “encode” the call-sign into a “hardware” address.  MAC addresses are nominally 48-bits, although the IEEE is trying to phase that out in favour of 64-bit EUIs.  Officially the IEEE looks after this, so we want to avoid doing things that might clash with their system.

A EUI-48 (MAC) address is 6-bytes long, where the first 3 bytes identify the type of address and the organisation, and the latter 3 bytes identify an individual device.  The least significant two bits of the first byte are flags that decide whether the address is unicast or local, and whether it is globally administered (by the IEEE) or locally administered.

To avoid complications, we should probably keep the unicast bit cleared to indicate that these addresses are unicast addresses.

Some might argue that the ITU assigns prefixes to countries, and these countries have national bodies that hand out callsigns, thus we could consider callsigns as “globally administered”.  Truth is, the IEEE has nothing to do with the process, and could very legitimately assign the EUI-48 prefix 56-4b-34 to a company… in that hypothetical scenario, there goes all the addresses that might represent amateur operators stationed in Queensland.  So let’s call these “locally administered”, since there are suffixes the user may choose (e.g. “/P”).

That gives us 46-bits to play with.  7-bit ASCII just fits 6 characters, which would just fit the callsigns used in AX.25 with enough room for a 4-bit SSID.  We don’t need all 128 characters though, and a scheme based on DEC’s Radix50 can pack in far more.

We can get 8 arbitrary Radix50 characters into 43 bits, which gives us 3 left over which can be used as the user wishes.  We’ll probably call it the SSID, but unlike AX.25, will be limited from 0-7.  The user can always use the least significant character in their callsign field for an additional 6 bits, which gives them 9 bits to play with.  (i.e. “VK4MSL-1″#0 to encode the AX.25 SSID “VK4MSL-10”)

Flip the multicast bit, and we’ve got a group address.

SLAAC derives the IPv6 address from the EUI-48, so the IPv6 address will effectively encode the callsigns of the two communicating stations.  If both are on the same “mesh”, then we can probably borrow ideas from 6LoWPAN for shortening that address.

So, I’ll admit to looking at AX.25 with the typical modems available (the classical 1200-baud AFSK and the more modern G3RUH modem which runs at a blistering 9600 baud… look out 5G!) years ago and wondering “what’s the point”?

It was Brisbane Area WICEN’s involvement in the International Rally of Queensland that changed my view somewhat.  This was an event that, until CAMS knocked it on the head, ran annually in the Imbil State Forest up in the Sunshine Coast hinterland.

There, WICEN used it for forwarding the scores of drivers as they passed through each stage of the rally.  A checkpoint would be at the start and finish of each stage, and a packet network would be set up with digipeaters in strategic locations and a base station, often located at the Imbil school.

The organisers of IRoQ did experiment with other ways of getting scores through, including hiring bandwidth on satellites, flying planes around in circles over the area, and other shenanigans.  Although these systems had faster throughput speeds, one thing they had which we did not have, was latency.  The score would arrive back at base long before the car had left the check point.

This freed up the analogue FM network for reporting other more serious matters.

In addition to this kind of work, WICEN also help out with horse endurance rides.  Traditionally we’ve just relied on good ol’e analogue FM radio, but in events such as the Tom Quilty, there has been a desire to use packet as a mechanism for reporting when horses arrive at given checkpoints and to perhaps enable autonomous stations that can detect horses via RFID and report those “back to base” to deter riders from cheating.

The challenge of AX.25 is two-fold:

1. With the exception of Linux, no other OS has any kind of baked-in support for it, so writing applications that can interact with it means either implementing your own AX.25 stack or interfacing to some third-party stack such as BPQ.
2. Due to the specialised stack, applications often have to run as privileged applications, can have problems with firewalling, etc.

The AX.25 protocol does do static routing.  It offers connected-mode links (like TCP) and a connectionless-mode (like UDP), and there are at least two routing protocols I know of that allow for dynamic routing (ROSE, Net/ROM).  There is a standard for doing IPv4 over AX.25, but you still need to manage the allocation of addresses and other details, it isn’t plug-and-play.

Net/ROM would make an ideal way to forward 6LoWPAN traffic, except it only does connected mode, and doing IP over a “TCP-like” link is really a bad idea.  (Anything that does automatic repeat requests really messes with TCP/IP.)

I have no idea whether ROSE does the connectionless mode, but the idea of needing to come up with a 10-digit numeric “address” is a real turn-off.

If the address used can be derived off the call-sign of the operator, that makes life a lot easier.

The IPv6 address format has enough bits to do that.  To me the most obvious way would be to derive a MAC address from a call-sign and an arbitrarily chosen digit (0-7).  It would be reversible of course, and since the MAC address is used in SLAAC, you would see the station’s call-sign in the IPv6 address.

The thinking is that there’s a lot of problems that have been solved in 6LoWPAN.  Discovery of services for example is handled using mechanisms like mDNS and CoRE RD.  We don’t need to forward Internet traffic, although being able to pull up the Mt. Kanigan and Mt. Stapylton radars over such a network would be real handy at times (yes, I know it’ll be slow).

The OS will view the packet network like a VPN, and so writing applications that can talk over packet will be no different to writing any other kind of network software.  Any consumer desktop OS written in the last 16 years has the necessary infrastructure to support it (even Windows 2000, there was a downloadable add-on for it).

Linking two separate “mesh” networks via point-to-point links is also trivial.  Each mesh will of course see the other as “external” but participants on both can nonetheless communicate.

The guts of 6LoWPAN is in RFC-4944.  This specifies details about how the IPv6 datagram is encoded as a IEEE 802.15.4 payload, and how the infrastructure within 802.15.4 is used to route IPv6.  Gnarly details like how fragmentation of a 1280-byte IPv6 datagram into something that will fit the 128-byte maximum 802.15.4 frames is handled here.  For what it’s worth, AX.25 allows 255 bytes (or was it 256?), so we’re ahead there.

Crucially, it is assumed that the 802.15.4 layer can figure out how to get from node A to node Z via B… C…, etc.  802.15.4 networks are managed by a PAN coordinator, which provides various services to the network.

AX.25 makes this “our problem”.  Yes the sender of a frame can direct which digipeaters a frame should be passed to, but they have to figure that out.  It’s like sending an email by UUCP, you need a map of the Internet to figure out what someone’s address is relative to your site.

Plain AX.25 digipeaters will of course be part of the mix, so having the ability for a node stuck on one side of such a digipeater would be worth having, but ultimately, the aim here will be to provide a route discovery mechanism in place that, knowing a few static digipeater routes, can figure out who is able to hear whom, and route traffic accordingly.

Yesterday’s post was rather long, but was intended for mostly technical audiences outside of amateur radio.  This post serves as a brain dump of volatile memory before I go to sleep for the night.  (Human conscious memory is more like D-RAM than one might realise.)

So, many in our group use packet radio TNCs already, with a good number using the venerable Kantronics KPC3.  These have a DB9 port that connects to the radio and a second DB25 RS-323 port that connects to the computer.

My proposal: we make an audio interface that either plugs into that DB9 port and re-uses the interface cables we already have, or directly into the radio’s data port.

This should connect to an audio interface on the computer.

For EMI’s sake, I’d recommend a USB sound dongle like this, or these, or this as that audio interface.  I looked on Jaycar and did see this one, which would also work (and burn a hole in your wallet!).

If you walk in and the asking price is more than \$30, I’d seriously consider these other options.  Of those options, U-Mart are here in Brisbane; go to their site, order a dongle then tell the site you’ll come and pick it up.  They’ll send you an email with an order number when it’s ready, you just need to roll up to the store, punch that number into a terminal in the shop, then they’ll call your name out for you to collect and pay for it.

Scorptec are in Melbourne, so you’ll have to have items shipped, but are also worth talking to.  (They helped me source some bits for my server cluster when U-Mart wouldn’t.)

USB works over two copper pairs; one delivers +5V and 0V, the other is a differential pair for data.  In short, the USB link should be pretty immune from EMI issues.

At worst, you should be able to deal with it with judicious application of ferrite beads to knock down the common mode current and using a combination of low-ESR electrolytic and ceramic capacitors across the power rails.

If you then keep the analogue cables as short as absolutely possible, you should have little opportunity for RF to get in.

I don’t recommend the TigerTronics Signalink interfaces, they use cheap and nasty isolation transformers that lead to serious performance issues.

For the receive audio, we feed the audio from the radio and we feed that via potentiometer to a 3.5mm TRS (“phono”) plug tip, with sleeve going to common.  This plugs into the Line-In or Microphone input on the sound device.

### Push to Talk and Transmit audio

I’ve bundled these together for a good reason.  The conventional way for computers to drive PTT is via an RS-232 serial port.

We can do that, but we won’t unless we have to.

Unless you’re running an original SoundBLASTER card, your audio interface is likely stereo.  We can get PTT control via an envelope detector forming a minimal-latency VOX control.

Another 3.5mm TRS plug connects to the “headphone” or “line-out” jack on our sound device and breaks out the left and right channels.

The left and right channels from the sound device should be fed into the “throw” contacts on two single-pole double-throw toggle switches.

The select pin (mechanically operated by the toggle handle) on each switch thus is used to select the left or right channel.

One switch’s select pin feeds into a potentiometer, then to the radio’s input.  We will call that the “modulator” switch; it selects which channel “modulates” our audio.  We can again adjust the gain with the potentiometer.

The other switch first feeds through a small Schottky diode then across a small electrolytic capacitor (to 0V) then through a small resistor before finally into the base of a small NPN signal transistor (e.g. BC547).  The emitter goes to 0V, the collector is our PTT signal.

This is the envelope detector we all know and love from our old experiments with crystal sets.  In theory, we could hook a speaker to the collector up to a power source and listen to AM radio stations, but in this case, we’ll be sending a tone down this channel to turn the transistor, and thus or PTT, on.

The switch feeding this arrangement we’ll call the “PTT” switch.

By using this arrangement, we can use either audio channel for modulation or PTT control, or we can use one channel for both.  1200-baud AFSK, FreeDV, etc, should work fine with both on the one channel.

If we just want to pass through analogue audio, then we probably want modulation separate, so we can hold the PTT open during speech breaks without having an annoying tone superimposed on our signal.

It may be prudent to feed a second resistor into the base of that NPN, running off to the RTS pin on an RS-232 interface.  This will let us use software that relies on RS-232 PTT control, which can be added by way of a USB-RS232 dongle.

The cheap Prolific PL-2303 ones sold by a few places (including Jaycar) will work for this.  (If your software expects a 16550 UART interface on port 0x3f8 or similar, consider running it in a virtual machine.)

Ideally though, this should not be needed, and if added, can be left disconnected without harm.

## Software

There are a few “off-the-shelf” packages that should work fine with this arrangement.

### AX.25 software

AGWPE on Windows provides a software TNC.  On Linux, there’s soundmodem (which I have used, and presently mirror) and Direwolf.

Shouldn’t need a separate PTT channel, it should be sufficient to make the pre-amble long enough to engage PTT and rely on the envelope detector recognising the packet.

### Digital Voice

FreeDV provides an open-source digital voice platform system for Windows, Linux and MacOS X.

This tool also lets us send analogue voice.  Digital voice should be fine, the first frame might get lost but as a frame is 40ms, we just wait before we start talking, like we would for regular analogue radio.

For the analogue side of things, we would want tone-driven PTT.  Not sure if that’s supported, but hey, we’ve got the source code, and yours truly has worked with it, it shouldn’t be hard to add.

### Slow-scan television

The two to watch here would be QSSTV (Linux) and EasyPal (Windows).  QSSTV is open-source, so if we need to make modifications, we can.

Not sure who maintains EasyPal these days, not Eric VK4AES as he’s no longer with us (RIP and thank-you).  Here, we might need an RS-232 PTT interface, which as discussed, is not a hard modification.

Most is covered by FLDigi.  Modes with a fairly consistent duty cycle will work fine with the VOX PTT, and once again, we have the source, we can make others work.

## Custom software ideas

So we can use a few off-the-shelf packages to do basic comms.

• We need auditability of our messaging system.  Analogue FM, we can just use a VOX-like function on the computer to record individual received messages, and to record outgoing traffic.  Text messages and files can be logged.
• Ideally, we should have some digital signing of logs to make them tamper-resistant.  Then we can mathematically prove what was sent.
• In a true  emergency, it may be necessary to encrypt what we transmit.  This is fine, we’re allowed to do this in such cases, and we can always turn over our audited logs for authorities anyway.
• Files will be sent as blocks which are forward-error corrected (or forward-erasure coded).  We can use a block cipher such as AES-256 to encrypt these blocks before FEC.  OpenPGP would work well here rather doing it from scratch; just send the OpenPGP output using FEC blocks.  It should be possible to pick out symmetric key used at the receiving end for auditing, this would be done if asked for by Government.  DIY not necessary, the building blocks are there.
• Digital voice is a stream, we can use block ciphers but this introduces latency and there’s always the issue of bit errors.  Stream ciphers on the other hand, work by generating a key stream, then XOR-ing that with the data.  So long as we can keep sync in the face of bit errors, use of a stream cipher should not impair noise immunity.
• Signal fade is a worse problem, I suggest a cleartext (3-bit, 4-bit?) gray-code sync field for synchronisation.  Receiver can time the length of a fade, estimate the number of lost frames, then use the field to re-sync.
• There’s more than a dozen stream ciphers to choose from.  Some promising ones are ACHTERBAHN-128, Grain 128a, HC-256, Phelix, Py, the Salsa20 family, SNOW 2/3G, SOBER-128, Scream, Turing, MUGI, Panama, ISAAC and Pike.
• Most (all?) stream ciphers are symmetric.  We would have to negotiate/distribute a key somehow, either use Diffie-Hellman or send a generated key as an encrypted file transfer (see above).  The key and both encrypted + decrypted streams could be made available to Government if needed.
• The software should be capable of:
• Real-time digital voice (encrypted and clear; the latter being compatible with FreeDV)
• File transfer (again, clear and encrypted using OpenPGP, and using good FEC, files will be cryptographically signed by sender)
• Voice mail and SSTV, implemented using file transfer.
• Analogue voice pass-through, with recordings made.
• All messages logged and time-stamped, received messages/files hashed, hashes cryptographically signed (OpenPGP signature)
• Operation over packet networks (AX.25, TCP/IP)
• Standard message forms with some basic input validation.
• Ad-hoc routing between interfaces (e.g. SSB to AX.25, AX.25 to TCP/IP, etc) should be possible.
• The above stack should ideally work on low-cost single-board computers that are readily available and are low-power.  Linux support will be highest priority, Windows/MacOS X/BSD is a nice-to-have.
• GNU Radio has building blocks that should let us do most of the above.

So, there’s been a bit of discussion lately about our communications infrastructure. I’ve been doing quite a bit of thinking about the topic.

# The situation today

Here in Australia, a lot of people are being moved over to the National Broadband Network… with the analogue fixed line phone (if it hasn’t disappeared already) being replaced with a digital service.

For many, their cellular “mobile” phone is their only means of contact. More than the over-glorified two-way radios that was pre-cellular car phones used by the social elites in the early 70s, or the slightly more sophisticated and tennis-elbow inducing AMPS hand-held mobile phones that we saw in the 80s, mobile phones today are truly versatile and powerful hand-held computers.

In fact, they are more powerful than the teen-aged computer I am typing this on. (And yes, I have upgraded it; 1GB RAM, 250GB mSATA SSD, Linux kernel 4.0… this 2GHz P4 still runs, and yes I’ll update that kernel in a moment. Now, how’s that iPhone 3G going, still running well?)

All of these devices are able to provide data communications throughput in the order of millions of bits per second, and outside of emergencies, are generally, very reliable.

It is easy to forget just how much needs to work properly in order for you to receive that funny cat picture.

## Mobile networks

One thing that is not clear about the NBN, is what happens when the power is lost. The electricity grid is not infallible, and requires regular maintenance, so while reliability is good, it is not guaranteed.

For FTTP users, battery backup is an optional extra. If you haven’t opted in, then your “land line” goes down when the power goes out.

This is not a fact that people think about. Most will say, “that’s fine, I’ve got my mobile” … but do you? The typical mobile phone cell tower has several hours battery back-up, and can be overwhelmed by traffic even in non-emergencies.They are fundamentally engineered to a cost, thus compromises are made on how long they can run without back-up power, and how much call capacity they carry.

In the 2008 storms that hit The Gap, I had no mobile telephone coverage for 2 days. My Nokia 3310 would occasionally pick up a signal from a tower in a neighbouring suburb such as Keperra, Red Hill or Bardon, and would thus occasionally receive the odd text message… but rarely could muster the effective radiated power to be able to reply back or make calls. (Yes, and Nokia did tell me that internal antennas surpassed the need for external ones. A 850MHz yagi might’ve worked!)

## Emergency Services

Now, you tell yourself, “Well, the emergency services have their own radios…”, and this is correct. They do have their own radio networks. They too are generally quite reliable. They have their problems. The Emergency Alerting System employed in Victoria was having capacity problems as far back as 2006 (emphasis mine):

A high-priority project under the Statewide Integrated Public Safety Communications Strategy was establishing a reliable statewide paging system; the emergency alerting system. The EAS became operational in 2006 at a cost of \$212 million. It provides coverage to about 96 per cent of Victoria through more than 220 remote transmitter sites. The system is managed by the Emergency Services Telecommunications Agency on behalf of the State and is used by the CFA, VICSES and Ambulance Victoria (rural) to alert approximately 37,400 personnel, mostly volunteers, to an incident. It has recently been extended to a small number of DSE and MFB staff.

Under the EAS there are three levels of message priority: emergency, non-emergency, and administrative. Within each category the system sends messages on a first-in, first-out basis. This means queued emergency messages are sent before any other message type and non-emergency messages have priority over administrative messages.

A problem with the transmission speed and coverage of messages was identified in 2006. The CFA expressed concern that areas already experiencing marginal coverage would suffer additional message loss when the system reached its limits during peak events.

To ensure statewide coverage for all pagers, in November 2006 EAS users decided to restrict transmission speed and respond to the capacity problems by upgrading the system. An additional problem with the EAS was caused by linking. The EAS can be configured to link messages by automatically sending a copy of a message to another pager address. If multiple copies of a message are sent the overall load on the system increases.

During the 2008 windstorm in Victoria the EAS was significantly short of delivery targets for non-emergency and administrative messages. The Emergency Services Telecommunications Agency subsequently reviewed how different agencies were using the system, including their message type selection and message linking. It recommended that the agencies establish business rules about the use of linking and processes for authorising and monitoring de-linking.

The planned upgrade was designed to ensure the EAS could cope better with more messages without the use of linking.

The upgrade was delayed several times and rescheduled for February 2009; it had not been rolled out by the time of Black Saturday. Unfortunately this affected the system on that day, after which the upgrade was postponed indefinitely.

I can find mention of this upgrade taking place around 2013. From what I gather, it did eventually happen, but it took a roasting from mother nature to make it happen. The lesson here is that even purpose built networks can fall over, and thus particularly in major incidents, it is prudent to have a back-up plan.

# Alternatives

For the lay person, CB radio can be a useful tool for short-range (longer-than-yelling-range) voice communications. UHF CB will cover a few kilometres in urban environments and can achieve quite long distances if good line-of-sight is maintained. They require no apparatus license, and are relatively inexpensive.

It is worth having a couple of cheap ones, a small torch and a packet of AAA batteries (stored separately) in the car or in a bag you take with you. You can’t use them if they’re in a cupboard at home and you’re not there.

The downside with the hand-helds, particularly the low end ones, is effective radiated power. They will have small “rubber ducky” antennas, optimised for size, and will typically have limited transmit power, some can do the 5W limit, but most will be 1W or less.

If you need a bit more grunt, a mobile UHF CB set and magnetic mount antenna could be assembled and fitted to most cars, and will provide 5W transmit power, capable of about 5-10km in good conditions.

HF (27MHz) CB can go further, and with 12W peak envelope power, it is possible to get across town with one, even interstate or overseas when conditions permit. These too, are worth looking at, and many can be had cheaply second-hand. They require a larger antenna however to be effective, and are less common today.

Beware of fakes though… A CB radio must meet “type approval”, just being technically able to transmit in that band doesn’t automatically make it a CB, it must meet all aspects of the Citizens Band Radio Service Class License to be classified a CB.

If it does more than 5W on UHF, it is not a UHF CB. If it mentions a transmit range outside of 476-478MHz, it is not a UHF CB.  Programming it to do UHF channels doesn’t change this.

Similarly, if your HF CB radio can do 26MHz (NZ CB, not Australia), uses FM instead of SSB/AM (UK CB, again not Australia), does more than 12W, or can do 28-30MHz (10m amateur), it doesn’t qualify as being a CB under the class license.

If you’ve got a good understanding of high-school mathematics and physics, then a Foundation amateur radio license is well within reach.  In fact, I’d strongly recommend it for anyone doing first year Electrical Engineering … as it will give you a good practical grounding in electrical theories.

Doing so, you get to use up to 10W of power (double what UHF CB gives you; 6dB can matter!) and access to four HF, one VHF and one UHF band using analogue voice or hand-keyed Morse code.

You can then use those “CB radios” that sell on eBay/DealExtreme/BangGood/AliExpress…etc, without issue, as being un-modified “commercial off-the-shelf”, they are acceptable for use under the Foundation license.

# Beyond Voice: amateur radio digital modes

Now, all good and well being able to get voice traffic across a couple of suburban blocks. In a large-scale disaster, it is often necessary to co-ordinate recovery efforts, which often means listings of inventory and requirements, welfare information, etc, needs to be broadcast.

You can put a spreadsheet on a USB stick and drive it there. You can deliver photos that way too. During an emergency event, roads may be in-passable, or they may be congested. If the regular communications channels are down, how does one get such files across town quickly?

Amateur radio requires operators who have undergone training and hold current apparatus licenses, but this service does permit the transmission of digital data (for standard and advanced licensees), with encryption if needed (“intercommunications when participating in emergency services operations or related training exercises”).

Amateur radio is by its nature, experimental. Lots of different mechanisms have been developed through experiment for intercommunication over amateur radio bands using digital techniques.

## Morse code

The oldest by far is commonly known as “Morse code”, and while it is slower than voice, it requires simpler transmitting and receiving equipment, and concentrates the transmitted power over a very narrow bandwidth, meaning it can be heard reliably at times when more sophisticated modes cannot. However, not everybody can send or receive it (yours truly included).

I won’t dwell on it here, as there are more practical mechanisms for transmitting lots of data, but have included it here for completeness. I will point out though, due to its simplicity, it has practically no latency, thus it can be faster than SMS.

Okay, there are actually quite a few modes that can be described in this manner, and I’ll use this term to refer to the family of modes. Basically, you can think of it as two dumb terminals linked via a radio channel. When you type text into one, that text appears on the other in near real-time. The latency is thus very low, on par with Morse code.

The earliest of these is the RTTY mode, but more modern incarnations of the same idea include PSK31.

These are normally used as-is. With some manual copying and pasting pieces of text at each end, it is possible to encode other forms of data as short runs of text and send files in short hand-crafted “packets”, which are then hand-deconstructed and decoded at the far end.

This can be automated to remove the human error component.

The method is slow, but these radioteletype modes are known for being able to “punch through” poor signal conditions.

When I was studying web design back in 2001, we were instructed to keep all photos below 30kB in size. At the time, dial-up Internet was common, and loading times were a prime consideration.

Thus instead of posting photos like this, we had to shrink them down, like this. Yes, some detail is lost, but it is good enough to get an “idea” of the situation.

The former photo is 2.8MB, the latter is 28kB. Via the above contrived transmission system, it would take about 20 minutes to transmit.

The method would work well for anything that is text, particularly simple spread sheets, which could be converted to Comma Separated Values to strip all but the most essential information, bringing file sizes down into realms that would allow transmission times in the order of 5 minutes. Text also compresses well, thus in some cases, transmission time can be reduced.

To put this into perspective, a drive from The Gap where that photo was taken, into the Brisbane CBD, takes about 20 minutes in non-peak-hour normal circumstances. It can take an hour at peak times. In cases of natural disaster, the roads available to you may be more congested than usual, thus you can expect peak-hour-like trip times.

## Radio Faximile and Slow Scan Television

This covers a wide variety of modes, ranging from the ancient like Hellschreiber which has its origins in the German Military back in World War II, various analogue slow-scan television modes through to the modern digital slow-scan television.

This allows the transmission of photos and visual information over radio. Some systems like EasyPAL and its elk (based on HamDRM, a variant of Digital Radio Mondiale) are in fact, general purpose modems for transmitting files, and thus can transmit non-graphical data too.

Transmit times can vary, but the analogue modes take between 30 seconds and two minutes depending on quality. For the HamDRM-based systems, transmit speeds vary between 86Bps up to 795kBps depending on the settings used.

Packet radio is the concept of implementing packet-switched networks over radio links. There are various forms of this, the most common in amateur radio being PACTOR, WINMOR, the 1200-baud AFSK and 9600-baud FSK and 300-baud AFSK packet modes.

300-baud AFSK is normally used on HF links, and hails from experiments using surplus Bell 103 modems modified to work with radio. Similarly, on VHF and UHF FM radio, experiments were done with surplus Bell 202 modems, giving rise to the 1200-baud AFSK mode.

The 9600-baud FSK mode was the invention of James Miller G3RUH, and was one of the first packet radio modes actually developed by radio amateur operators for use on radio.

These are all general-purpose data modems, and while they can be used for radioteletype applications, they are designed with computer networking in mind.

The feature facilities like automatic repeating of lost messages, and in some cases support forward error correction. PACTOR/WINMOR is actually used with the Winlink radio network which provides email services.

The 300-baud, 1200-baud and 9600-baud versions generally use a networking protocol called AX.25, and by configuring stations with multiple such “terminal node controllers” (modems) connected and appropriate software, a station can operate as a router, relaying traffic received via one radio channel to a station that’s connected via another, or to non-AX.25 stations on Winlink or the Internet.

It is well suited to automatic stations, operating without human intervention.

AX.25 packet and PACTOR I are open standards, the later PACTOR modems are proprietary devices produced by SCS in Germany.

AX.25 packet is capable of transmit speeds between 15Bps (300 baud) and 1kBps (9600 baud). PACTOR varies between 5Bps and 650Bps.

In theory, it is possible to develop new modems for transmitting AX.25, the HamDRM modem used for slow-scan television and the FDMDV modem used in FreeDV being good starting points as both are proven modems with good performance.

These simply require an analogue interface between the computer sound card and radio, and appropriate software.  Such an interface made to link a 1200-baud TNC to a radio could be converted to link to a low-cost USB audio dongle for connection to a computer.

If someone is set up for 1200-baud packet, setting up for these other modes is not difficult.

## High speed data

Going beyond standard radios, amateur radio also has some very high-speed data links available. D-Star Digital Data operates on the 23cm microwave band and can potentially transmit files at up to 16KBps, which approaches ADSL-lite speeds. Transceivers such as the Icom ID-1 provide this via an Ethernet interface for direct connection to a computer.

General Electric have a similar offering for industrial applications that operates on various commercial bands, some of which can reach amateur frequencies, thus would be usable on amateur bands. These devices offer transmit speeds up to 8KBps.

A recent experiment by amateurs using off-the-shelf 50mW 433MHz FSK modules and Realtek-based digital TV tuner receivers produced a high-speed speed data link capable of delivering data at up to 14KBps using a wideband (~230kHz) radio channel on the 70cm band.  They used it to send high definition photos from a high-altitude balloon.

## The point?

We’ve got a lot of tools at our disposal for getting a message through, and collectively, 140 years of experience at our disposal. In an emergency situation, that means we have a lot of different options, if one doesn’t work, we can try another.

No, a 1200-baud VHF packet link won’t stream 4k HD video, but it has minimal latency and will take less than 20 minutes to transmit a 100kB file over distances of 10km or more.

A 1kB email will be at the other end before you can reach for your car keys.  Further experimentation and development means we can only improve.  Amateur radio is far from obsolete.

So, as promised, the re-design of the charge controller. … now under the the influence of a few glasses of wine, so this should be interesting…

As I mentioned in my last post, it was clear that the old logic just wasn’t playing nice with this controller, and that using this controller to maintain the voltage to the nodes below 13.6V was unrealistic.

The absolute limits I have to work with are 16V and 11.8V.

The 11.8V comes from the combination of regulator voltage drop and ATX PSU power range limits: they don’t operate below about 10.8V, if you add 700mV, you get 11.5V … you want to allow yourself some head room. Plus, cycling the battery that deep does it no good.

As for the 16V limit… this is again a limitation of the LDOs, they don’t operate above 16V. In any case, at 16V, the poor LDOs are dropping over 3V, and if the node is running flat chat, that equates to 15W of power dissipation in the LDO. Again, we want some headroom here.

The Xantrex charger likes pumping ~15.4V in at flat chat, so let’s go 15.7V as our peak.

Those are our “extreme” ranges.

At the lower end, we can’t disconnect the nodes, but something should be visible from the system firmware on the cluster nodes themselves, and we can thus do some proactive load shedding, hibernating virtual instances and preparing nodes for a blackout.

Maybe I can add a small 10Mbps Ethernet module to an AVR that can wake the nodes using WOL packets or IPMI requests. Perhaps we shut down two nodes, since the Ceph cluster will need 2/3 up, and we need at least one compute node.

At the high end, the controller has the ability to disconnect the charger.

So that’s worked out. Now, we really don’t want the battery getting that critically low. Thus the time to bring the charger in will be some voltage above the 11.8V minimum. Maybe about 12V… perhaps a little higher.

We want it at a point that when there’s a high load, there’s time to react before we hit the critical limit.

The charger needs to choose a charging source, switch that on, then wait … after a period check the voltage and see if the situation has improved. If there’s no improvement, then we switch sources and wait a bit longer. Wash, rinse, repeat. When the battery ceases to increase in voltage, we need to see if it’s still in need of a charge, or whether we just call it a day and run off the battery for a bit.

If the battery is around 14.5~15.5V, then that’s probably good enough and we should stop. The charger might decide this for us, and so we should just watch for that: if the battery stops charging, and it is at this higher level, just switch to discharge mode and watch for the battery hitting the low threshold.

Thus we can define four thresholds, subject to experimental adjustment:

 Symbol Description Threshold $V_{CH}$ Critical high voltage 15.7V $V_H$ High voltage 15.5V $V_L$ Low voltage 12.0V $V_{CL}$ Critical low voltage 11.8V

Now, our next problem is the waiting… how long do we wait for the battery to change state? If things are in the critical bands, then we probably want to monitor things very closely, outside of this, we can be more relaxed.

For now, I’ll define two time-out settings… which we’ll use depending on circumstances:

 Symbol Description Period $t_{LF}$ Low-frequency polling period 15 sec $t_{HF}$ High-frequency polling period 5 sec

In order to track the state, I need to define some variables… we shall describe the charger’s state in terms of the following variables:

 Symbol Description Initial value $V_{BL}$ Last-known battery voltage, set at particular points. 0V $V_{BN}$ The current battery voltage, as read by the ADC using an interrupt service routine. 0V $t_d$ Timer delay… a timer used to count down until the next event. $t_{HF}$ $S$ Charging source, an enumeration: 0: No source selected 1: Main charging source (e.g. solar) 2: Back-up charging source (e.g. mains power) 0

The variable names in the actual code will be a little more verbose and I’ll probably use #defines for the enumeration.

Below is the part-state-machine part-flow-chart diagram that I came up with. It took a few iterations to try and describe this accurately, I was going to use a state machine syntax similar to what my workplace uses, but in the end, found the ye olde flow chart shows it best.

In this diagram, a filled in dot represents the entry point, a dot with an X represents an exit point, and a dot in a circle represents a point where the state machine re-enters the state and waits for the main loop to iterate once more.

You’ll note that for this controller, we only care about one voltage, the battery voltage. That said, the controller will still have temperature monitoring duties, so we still need some logic to switch the ADC channel, throw away dummy samples (as per the datasheet) and manage sample storage. The hardware design does not need to change.

We can use quiescent voltages to detect the presence of a charging source, but we do not need to, as we can just watch the battery voltage rise, or not, to decide whether we need to take further action.

Well, today’s mail had a surprise.  Back about 6 years ago, I was sub-contracted to Jacques Electronics to help them develop some device drivers for their video intercom system.  At the time, they were using TI’s TLV320AIC3204 and system-on-modules based on the Freescale i.MX27 SoC.

No driver existed in the ALSA tree for this particular audio CODEC, and while TI did have one available under NDA, the driver was only licensed for use with a TI OMAP SoC.  I did what just about any developer would do, grabbed the closest-looking existing ALSA SoC driver, ripped it apart and started hacking.  Thus I wound up getting to grips with the I²S infrastructure within the i.MX27 and taming the little beast that is the TLV320AIC3204, producing this patch.

As the code was a derivative work, the code was automatically going to be under the GPLv2 and thus was posted on the ALSA SoC mailing list for others to use.  This would help protect Jacques from any possible GPL infringement regarding the use of that driver.  I was able to do this as it was a clean-room implementation using only material in TI’s data sheet, thus did not contain any intellectual property of my then-employer.

About that time I recall one company using the driver in their IP camera product, the driver itself never made it into the mainline kernel.  About 6 months later, another driver for the TLV320AIC3204 and 3254 did get accepted there, I suspect this too was a clean-room implementation.

Fast forward to late August, I receive an email from Jeremy McDermond on behalf of the Northwest Digital Radio.  They had developed the Universal Digital Radio Controller board for the Raspberry Pi series of computers based around this same CODEC chip.  Interestingly, it was the ‘AIC3204 driver that I developed all that time before that proved to be the code they needed to get the chip working.  The chip in question can be seen up the top-right corner of the board.

Timely, as there’s a push at the moment within Brisbane Area WICEN Group to investigate possible alternatives to our aging packet radio system and software stack.  These boards, essentially being radio-optimised sound cards, have been used successfully for implementing various digital modes including AX.25 packet, D-Star and could potentially do FreeDV and other digital modes.

So, looks like I’ll be chasing up a supplier for a newer Raspberry Pi board, and seeing what I can do about getting this device talking to the world.

Many thanks to the Northwest Digital Radio company for their generous donation! 🙂