Hello All,

I've only had two nodes up for a few days but Teamviewer 11 works well within the MESH network and even from my cell phone into the MESH.  I've also been able to use Teamviewer's file transfer function.

No special configuration or setting changes were required on the MESH side or on the PC side.

So this appears to be a viable way of transferring files within MESH and from the outside in.

MESH is quite an interesting concept but as with all technology, the easier it can be made to configure, manage, and use, the more widespread use and acceptance it will enjoy.  Installation is a breeze.

Having fun meshing!

I am in Goshen with good elevation and I am very interested in setting up a node here.

Dave

N9QNZ

Installation of the firmware into two WRT54GL Linksys routers was super easy and I now have two nodes up and running.

It would be very helpful if there were specific how-to's on doing device or application specific uses.  I blundered my way into setting up an Astak Webcam that I can now view/control while I am within the MESH network but not from outside the MESH network.

I'm very familiar with port forwarding but so far getting from the outside into the MESH network and to the webcam has been an elusive task.  Any sites or specific resources to address such things?  Thanks.

We figured out why the one guy couldn't connect. That is fixed.

(Duplicate -- please delete)

Three of us hams in Mesa went to a park with our modified Linksys routers. I setup a webcam service. One of the other hams was able to connect but not the other.

The ONLY way the one that did connect was able to connect was by using my IP address. Using my node name N9MS-BB would not work.

Pinging N9MS-BB on the computer that was able to connect resolved to a totally different IP address than my actual IP address. Where did this IP address come from?

What is wrong with our setup that Node Names resolve to a seemingly incorrect IP address? We pretty much left everything at the default except for entering our Node Names.

Mike N9MS

Understood NG5V. Some of the Maryland folks have approached us in rural Virginia to locate a node on our hilltop location. Our hosts, and myself as trustee, likely won't allow anything that can be even remotely questionable and the current "technical possibility" of mixing the two regimes (15 and 97) is enough for them to say "no way."

However, the 3.4 GHz approach looks very promising as it seems there is a paperwork hurdle to cross before one can purchase a, I assume an export version, Bullet, etc. A built-in processing barrier filtering out non-hams goes a long way towards avoiding the potential problems and, much more importantly, convincing a bureaucracy to allow it.

I remain an optimistic student of this effort.

It is more complex than you suggest. It is true that these devices could be operated under either part 15 or part 97 rules. If you owned all the nodes in use and no other people are in the network, it is easy for you to set your own rules. The rub occurs when you have other people involved as they pass data through your mesh node.

If you load this firmware and connect to other BBHN mesh nodes, your traffic and the traffic of other hams will all pass to the next step in the mesh. You might think you are operating under part 15 but they are not and you can't enforce any restrictions on other nodes. The problem gets worse if anyone connects an Internet feed to the network or adds an access point to let cell phones be used over WiFi. The ham owning or deploying the mesh node needs take steps to avoid FCC violations.

All devices with BBHN firmware should be treated as if part 97 applies.

Caution: Please don't extend this topic into an encryption discussion. None of us write the rules and we can't change them regardless of what we say here.

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest the notion simply using your callsign in any form in network identification attributes "automatically" puts your Part 15 compliant gear under Part 97 rules is ridiculous.  This is no more true than if you used your callsign on your home router.  It's just a string of characters used in networking parameters and nothing more.  Crossing the divide between Part 15 to Part 97 is not a matter of interpreting network device identification parameters, rather, it is strictly a question of straying from defined technical attributes including Power/EiRP limits, operating outside Part 15 frequency bands, use of certain modulation techniques, etc.  it's all right there in the FCC's Part 15 documentation.

Because of band and modulation overlap, it is technically possible for a Part 15 device to communicate with a Part 97 device.  It could be as simple as the Part 97 system is a Part 15 router with a beam antenna that causes it to exceed the EiRP limit.  It is otherwise just a couple pieces of network gear although the Part 97 guy needs a callsign in the system somehow.  Unfortunately the Part 97 operator would be violating 97.113 by communicating with the Part 15 device.  I don't know if the Part 15 operator would be violating anything.  The cure to this situation is for the Part 15 guy to simply be a ham and act as control operator and then yes he has to jump through some hoops to ensure things like certain encryption is off, etc. plus he then needs to put a callsign somewhere in the network id.

This brings us to these points

• A piece of wireless gear broadcasting a callsign may or may not be Part 97 (there is no way to know if the identifier is just a random string or something more),
• A piece of wireless gear operating under Part 97 shall broadcast a callsign.

A subtle, but important difference.

I need some Help loading SIP firmware on my Cisco 7940's

They currently show a message that says

protocol application invalid

someone please help !!!

You should hook up with Dan O'Donovan W4DOD in Dandridge, Jim Snyder in Knoxville and Kevin DuPlantis in Knoxville as they are working with me on our Statewide Tennessee project.  We have palns to expand out into the Bristol area as well.

The command line IRC client program IRSSI could perhaps function under SCREEN on a WRT54GS.   Has this been tried?   SCREEN is included in the list of installable programs, installs as expected and runs as expected.  I did not see IRSSI there.    Has anybody tried it?

Thanks,

Bill - WA7NWP