Elecraft

How reliable an internet connection is needed for A K3 remote to work well?

Classic

List

Threaded

34 messages Options

Mitch Wolfson, DJØQN / K7DX

Re: How reliable an internet connection is needed for A K3 remote to work well?

Just a further tip from my side: the RemoteRig RRC allows ToS tagging.
It is entered in the advanced settings under "IP Type-of-Service (dec)".
The manual refers to RFC791 that use this in QoS networks and support
this function. Entries must be made in decimal.

Unfortunately, I have found no "home" routers so far (at least here in
DL) that support QoS tags. However, this will for sure help those that
do have routers supporting QoS.

73,
Mitch DJ0QN

Mitch Wolfson
DJØQN / K7DX
Neubiberger Str. 21, 85640 Putzbrunn
Skype: mitchwo - Home:+49 89 32152700 - Mobile:+49 172 8374436
Echolink: 3001 - IRLP: 5378

On 18.07.2014 11:22, David Woolley wrote:

> It is standard to use UDP (RTP) over VoIP for the reasons given by
> Iain. Over a corporate network, VoIP traffic should have a QoS
> tagging on the IP packets which causes routers to prioritise it. VoIP
> over the internet has always been done for cost, not quality reasons,
> as the whole concept behind IP networks is at conflict with constant
> rate traffic; the telephone industry devised ATM as a packet network
> for that application (although they are now moving to IP, because
> voice is no longer the dominant bandwidth user - but I am sure they
> will prioritise their voice traffic).
>
> RTP has a marker bit which indicates a safe place to dump a latency
> buffer's contents. Conceivably setting this during tuning would be a
> good idea. If the remote operation protocol doesn't user RTP, someone
> has been re-inventing the wheel.
>
> As someone mentioned WiFi. It is generally accepted, in the VoIP
> world, that WiFi and VoIP don't mix because WiFi introduces additional
> latency. I believe it also does link level retransmission which,
> means latency can be particularly bad if you don't have ideal conditions.
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Gerry Hull

Re: How reliable an internet connection is needed for A K3 remote to work well?

I have a MicroTik inexpensive router that supports QOS, and it helps.

However, all bets are off when using far-flung networks.

BTW, I've been exclusively VoIP with my landlines for over 10 years.
Quality is very good (using the correct provider), and, yes, cost is very
low. All the major telecoms in the US use VoIP for backhaul from cellular
sites -- it is far less expensive than TDM. I was happy to see RemoteRig
using SIP.. It works well.

Gerry Hull, W1VE | Hancock, NH USA | +1-603-499-7373
AKA: VE1RM | VY2CDX | VO1CDX | 6Y6C | 8P9RM
<http://www.yccc.org> <http://www.yccc.org/>
<http://www.facebook.com/gerryhull>
<https://plus.google.com/+GerryHull/posts> <http://www.twitter.com/w1ve>

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Mitch Wolfson DJØQN <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Just a further tip from my side: the RemoteRig RRC allows ToS tagging. It
> is entered in the advanced settings under "IP Type-of-Service (dec)". The
> manual refers to RFC791 that use this in QoS networks and support this
> function. Entries must be made in decimal.
>
> Unfortunately, I have found no "home" routers so far (at least here in DL)
> that support QoS tags. However, this will for sure help those that do have
> routers supporting QoS.
>
>
> 73,
> Mitch DJ0QN
>
> Mitch Wolfson
> DJØQN / K7DX
> Neubiberger Str. 21, 85640 Putzbrunn
> Skype: mitchwo - Home:+49 89 32152700 - Mobile:+49 172 8374436
> Echolink: 3001 - IRLP: 5378
>
> On 18.07.2014 11:22, David Woolley wrote:
>
>> It is standard to use UDP (RTP) over VoIP for the reasons given by Iain.
>> Over a corporate network, VoIP traffic should have a QoS tagging on the IP
>> packets which causes routers to prioritise it. VoIP over the internet has
>> always been done for cost, not quality reasons, as the whole concept behind
>> IP networks is at conflict with constant rate traffic; the telephone
>> industry devised ATM as a packet network for that application (although
>> they are now moving to IP, because voice is no longer the dominant
>> bandwidth user - but I am sure they will prioritise their voice traffic).
>>
>> RTP has a marker bit which indicates a safe place to dump a latency
>> buffer's contents. Conceivably setting this during tuning would be a good
>> idea. If the remote operation protocol doesn't user RTP, someone has been
>> re-inventing the wheel.
>>
>> As someone mentioned WiFi. It is generally accepted, in the VoIP world,
>> that WiFi and VoIP don't mix because WiFi introduces additional latency. I
>> believe it also does link level retransmission which, means latency can be
>> particularly bad if you don't have ideal conditions.
>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

Michael Walker

Re: How reliable an internet connection is needed for A K3 remote to work well?

If you want to use QOS tagging, you need to make sure that you 'somehow'
get all the packets tagged in your network. It is harder to do than it
sounds. DD-WRT routers seem to do it 'ok' but I have yet to solve it
perfectly. In my situation, my remote base is at a cottage and it works
perfectly unless there is a gaggle of family each with at least 3 wireless
devices connected. I has given me lots of real world practice in trying to
tune a network in such a way that my RemoteRig is not impacted.

There is another issue that routers today have a problem dealing with, and
that is buffer bloat. In a real time application like VoIP, you do NOT
want large buffers in your routers as that will actually cause you more
problems. Last I check, and it has been some time now, there were no
routers that handled buffer bloat correctly.

I do believe Meru Wireless (an expensive corporate solution) and Astaro
routers manage buffer bloat reasonably well.

The moral of the story is to stay wired unless you have to go wireless. A
single box of 1000ft of Cat 5 isn't very expensive and provides a much
better connection in such a solution.

Again, this is from real world experience.

Mike va3mw

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Gerry Hull <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I have a MicroTik inexpensive router that supports QOS, and it helps.
>
> However, all bets are off when using far-flung networks.
>
> BTW, I've been exclusively VoIP with my landlines for over 10 years.
> Quality is very good (using the correct provider), and, yes, cost is very
> low. All the major telecoms in the US use VoIP for backhaul from cellular
> sites -- it is far less expensive than TDM. I was happy to see RemoteRig
> using SIP.. It works well.
>
>
>
>
> Gerry Hull, W1VE | Hancock, NH USA | +1-603-499-7373
> AKA: VE1RM | VY2CDX | VO1CDX | 6Y6C | 8P9RM
> <http://www.yccc.org> <http://www.yccc.org/>
> <http://www.facebook.com/gerryhull>
> <https://plus.google.com/+GerryHull/posts> <
> http://www.twitter.com/w1ve>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Mitch Wolfson DJØQN <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Just a further tip from my side: the RemoteRig RRC allows ToS tagging.
> It
> > is entered in the advanced settings under "IP Type-of-Service (dec)". The
> > manual refers to RFC791 that use this in QoS networks and support this
> > function. Entries must be made in decimal.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I have found no "home" routers so far (at least here in
> DL)
> > that support QoS tags. However, this will for sure help those that do
> have
> > routers supporting QoS.
> >
> >
> > 73,
> > Mitch DJ0QN
> >
> > Mitch Wolfson
> > DJØQN / K7DX
> > Neubiberger Str. 21, 85640 Putzbrunn
> > Skype: mitchwo - Home:+49 89 32152700 - Mobile:+49 172 8374436
> > Echolink: 3001 - IRLP: 5378
> >
> > On 18.07.2014 11:22, David Woolley wrote:
> >
> >> It is standard to use UDP (RTP) over VoIP for the reasons given by Iain.
> >> Over a corporate network, VoIP traffic should have a QoS tagging on
> the IP
> >> packets which causes routers to prioritise it. VoIP over the internet
> has
> >> always been done for cost, not quality reasons, as the whole concept
> behind
> >> IP networks is at conflict with constant rate traffic; the telephone
> >> industry devised ATM as a packet network for that application (although
> >> they are now moving to IP, because voice is no longer the dominant
> >> bandwidth user - but I am sure they will prioritise their voice
> traffic).
> >>
> >> RTP has a marker bit which indicates a safe place to dump a latency
> >> buffer's contents. Conceivably setting this during tuning would be a
> good
> >> idea. If the remote operation protocol doesn't user RTP, someone has
> been
> >> re-inventing the wheel.
> >>
> >> As someone mentioned WiFi. It is generally accepted, in the VoIP world,
> >> that WiFi and VoIP don't mix because WiFi introduces additional
> latency. I
> >> believe it also does link level retransmission which, means latency can
> be
> >> particularly bad if you don't have ideal conditions.
> >>
> >>
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Elecraft mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> > Message delivered to [hidden email]
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT

Re: How reliable an internet connection is needed for A K3 remote to work well?

On 7/18/2014 12:29 PM, Michael Walker wrote:
> The moral of the story is to stay wired unless you have to go wireless. A
> single box of 1000ft of Cat 5 isn't very expensive and provides a much
> better connection in such a solution.
I've actually used powerline adapters when wiring was inconvenient (too
hard to fish cable through walls, floors, etc.) very successfully.

The ones I have came from D-Link.
<http://www.dlink.com/us/en/home-solutions/connect/powerline>

They were quite reliable. I used them in a fairly critical application too.

-- Lynn
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Rick Tavan N6XI

Re: How reliable an internet connection is needed for a K3 remote to work well?

In reply to this post by James Beitchman

I have almost identical symptoms - brief audio dropouts, sometimes
solitary, sometimes many and frequent, rendering the remote setup unusable.
However, I'm NOT using WiFi connectivity between the RRC and the router. My
RRC connects directly to my Cisco/Linksys EA4500 router with a short RJ45
cable. Are there other settings in the router that might provoke similar
symptoms? I should have ample bandwidth on my cable TV Internet connection
- typically 20-30 Mb down, 1-2 Mb up, 20-40 ms ping.

Any thoughts?

Thanks & 73,

/Rick N6XI

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:51 PM, James Beitchman <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Barry and others,
>
>
>
> I have been following the discussion and want to add the description of a
> problem and its solution that I encountered with my remote operation.
>
>
>
> My set-up:
>
>
>
> Control site: Manhattan, New York; k3/0 mini to RemoteRig with wireless to
> WiFi router to Cable ISP (ping 10ms; 15Mbps forward; 1Mbps return); more
> than 25 strong WiFi networks in range
>
>
>
> Radio site: Town of Clinton, NY (rural); K3/100 to RemoteRig with wireless
> to WiFi router to cable ISP (ping 16ms; 55Mbps forward; 25Mbps return);
> only
> my own WiFi Network in range
>
>
>
> Parameter settings: All settings of the RemoteRig and Elecraft equipment at
> both ends were without any exception at the values recommended by Microbit
> and Elecraft in the manuals
>
>
>
> Problem: Dropped packets resulting 0.1 - 1 sec audio drop outs both ways
> and
> messed up CW; worse during business busy hour (5 - 6 pm) and at night from
> 8
> - 11pm
>
>
>
> Solution: The problem is clearly not caused by line speed or ping time. At
> first I though the problem might be congestion at the cable node in the
> City
> (400+ business and residential users on the fiber fed node), but the cable
> company convinced me with tests that I witnessed that this was not the
> issue. Then I talked to some folks about WiFi issues. What I learned is
> that
> most WiFi equipment as-delivered is set for channel 6 as default and most
> users leave it there. I checked my router in the City and found it was on
> channel 6. I changed my router to channel 8 and the dropped packet problem
> completely disappeared and CW is just fine. So the problem appears to have
> been something we hams are all familiar with - QRM. My suggestion is, if
> you are having a dropped packet problem and are using WiFi in a dense WiFi
> environment as part of your remote system, try changing your router WiFi
> channel as a first very easy step to solving the problem.
>
>
>
> 73,
>
>
>
> Buzz
>
> W3EMD
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Message: 9
>
> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
>
> From: Barry <[hidden email]>
>
> To: [hidden email]
>
> Subject: [Elecraft] How reliable an internet connection is needed for
>
> A K3 remote to work well?
>
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
>
> A while back we tried Remoterig with a Kenwood radio and the CW generated
> was poor on the other end. This was presumably from dropped packets and or
> latency issues (Comcast on one end and a terrestrial microwave connection
> on
> the other end). Some dits/dahs were lost and others were prolonged, due to
> the lost stop signal. My understanding of the remoterig protocol for CW is
> it's not very robust, with no error correction or ACKing.
>
>
>
> We got around the CW problem by using a VNC and the CW is generated at the
> host end within the VNC window, using N1MM, directly keying the radio.
>
>
>
> If we were to use a K3 and K3/remote for the radio, would there be
> potential
> radio control issues due to the flaky internet connection, or is there
> redundancy and/or error correction built into the Elecraft remote protocol?
>
>
>
> Barry W2UP
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

--
Rick Tavan N6XI
Truckee, CA
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Matt Zilmer-2

Re: How reliable an internet connection is needed for a K3 remote to work well?

Suggest you find the EAxxxx menu that allows you to optimize SIP
and/or VoIP performance. It is here on this EA9600 somewhere. I
think all the higher-end Linksys routers have this setting.

Most remote audio uses SIP for call setup and one of several ULPs for
voice VoIP. RTP is one of them. Brandon at Elecraft knows a lot
about all this, and may be able to give more detailed advice.

73,
matt W6NIA

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:40:05 -0700, you wrote:

>I have almost identical symptoms - brief audio dropouts, sometimes
>solitary, sometimes many and frequent, rendering the remote setup unusable.
>However, I'm NOT using WiFi connectivity between the RRC and the router. My
>RRC connects directly to my Cisco/Linksys EA4500 router with a short RJ45
>cable. Are there other settings in the router that might provoke similar
>symptoms? I should have ample bandwidth on my cable TV Internet connection
>- typically 20-30 Mb down, 1-2 Mb up, 20-40 ms ping.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Thanks & 73,
>
>/Rick N6XI
>
>
>On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:51 PM, James Beitchman <[hidden email]>
>wrote:
>
>> Barry and others,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have been following the discussion and want to add the description of a
>> problem and its solution that I encountered with my remote operation.
>>
>>
>>
>> My set-up:
>>
>>
>>
>> Control site: Manhattan, New York; k3/0 mini to RemoteRig with wireless to
>> WiFi router to Cable ISP (ping 10ms; 15Mbps forward; 1Mbps return); more
>> than 25 strong WiFi networks in range
>>
>>
>>
>> Radio site: Town of Clinton, NY (rural); K3/100 to RemoteRig with wireless
>> to WiFi router to cable ISP (ping 16ms; 55Mbps forward; 25Mbps return);
>> only
>> my own WiFi Network in range
>>
>>
>>
>> Parameter settings: All settings of the RemoteRig and Elecraft equipment at
>> both ends were without any exception at the values recommended by Microbit
>> and Elecraft in the manuals
>>
>>
>>
>> Problem: Dropped packets resulting 0.1 - 1 sec audio drop outs both ways
>> and
>> messed up CW; worse during business busy hour (5 - 6 pm) and at night from
>> 8
>> - 11pm
>>
>>
>>
>> Solution: The problem is clearly not caused by line speed or ping time. At
>> first I though the problem might be congestion at the cable node in the
>> City
>> (400+ business and residential users on the fiber fed node), but the cable
>> company convinced me with tests that I witnessed that this was not the
>> issue. Then I talked to some folks about WiFi issues. What I learned is
>> that
>> most WiFi equipment as-delivered is set for channel 6 as default and most
>> users leave it there. I checked my router in the City and found it was on
>> channel 6. I changed my router to channel 8 and the dropped packet problem
>> completely disappeared and CW is just fine. So the problem appears to have
>> been something we hams are all familiar with - QRM. My suggestion is, if
>> you are having a dropped packet problem and are using WiFi in a dense WiFi
>> environment as part of your remote system, try changing your router WiFi
>> channel as a first very easy step to solving the problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> 73,
>>
>>
>>
>> Buzz
>>
>> W3EMD
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Message: 9
>>
>> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>
>> From: Barry <[hidden email]>
>>
>> To: [hidden email]
>>
>> Subject: [Elecraft] How reliable an internet connection is needed for
>>
>> A K3 remote to work well?
>>
>> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>>
>>
>> A while back we tried Remoterig with a Kenwood radio and the CW generated
>> was poor on the other end. This was presumably from dropped packets and or
>> latency issues (Comcast on one end and a terrestrial microwave connection
>> on
>> the other end). Some dits/dahs were lost and others were prolonged, due to
>> the lost stop signal. My understanding of the remoterig protocol for CW is
>> it's not very robust, with no error correction or ACKing.
>>
>>
>>
>> We got around the CW problem by using a VNC and the CW is generated at the
>> host end within the VNC window, using N1MM, directly keying the radio.
>>
>>
>>
>> If we were to use a K3 and K3/remote for the radio, would there be
>> potential
>> radio control issues due to the flaky internet connection, or is there
>> redundancy and/or error correction built into the Elecraft remote protocol?
>>
>>
>>
>> Barry W2UP
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>>

Matt Zilmer, W6NIA
www.elecraft.com
831-763-4211 x129

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

W5UXH

Re: How reliable an internet connection is needed for A K3 remote to work well?

In reply to this post by Mitch Wolfson, DJØQN / K7DX

I recently started using the PingPlotter network monitoring software and find it quite useful for keeping long term data in graph format of my packet loss with Comcast.

http://www.pingplotter.com/

The Free version does not provide long term monitoring. The Standard version is reasonably priced (around $30 I think) but the 30 day trial is fully functional.

I do not know how it would work with remote station hosts, if they behave like a normal server or not. But if not one could still use it to track problems that are at the first few hops by monitoring other servers like google etc.

You can display graphs for each hop in the path to the server. It is much easier to use than manual trace route and ping tests to each hop.

Almost all of my packet loss is at hop #2 which is the first node past my router.

Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT

Re: How reliable an internet connection is needed for A K3 remote to work well?

If you're going to ping something, do a traceroute and ping a router a
few hops into your provider's network, or ping something like your
provider's web server.

When you choose to ping something like Google, it tells you about your
provider's network up to the first place they can get rid of your
packets, and every other network up to the Google server.

The reason you want to look at something close is that you can either
control it yourself, or you can complain about it to someone you pay.
When you ping Google, your provider's SLA will carefully explain that
they don't control the whole internet, and aren't responsible for
anything beyond their own network.

73 -- Lynn

On 7/25/2014 8:02 AM, W5UXH wrote:
> But if not one could still use it to track
> problems that are at the first few hops by monitoring other servers like
> google etc.

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Michael Walker

Re: How reliable an internet connection is needed for A K3 remote to work well?

Huh?

> On Jul 25, 2014, at 12:43 PM, "Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> If you're going to ping something, do a traceroute and ping a router a few hops into your provider's network, or ping something like your provider's web server.
>
> When you choose to ping something like Google, it tells you about your provider's network up to the first place they can get rid of your packets, and every other network up to the Google server.
>
> The reason you want to look at something close is that you can either control it yourself, or you can complain about it to someone you pay. When you ping Google, your provider's SLA will carefully explain that they don't control the whole internet, and aren't responsible for anything beyond their own network.
>
> 73 -- Lynn
>
>> On 7/25/2014 8:02 AM, W5UXH wrote:
>> But if not one could still use it to track
>> problems that are at the first few hops by monitoring other servers like
>> google etc.
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT

Re: How reliable an internet connection is needed for A K3 remote to work well?

Mike,

Think of it as tuning up on top of an existing QSO. You're using
Google's bandwidth, but not in any way that supports Google.

If lots of people "tune up" on top of Google, they have to address the
unwanted traffic, or throw money at the problem (buy more bandwidth).

Courtesy suggest that you can dial off a bit, and still "tune" just fine.

A traceroute from my workstation goes through Verizon DSL, through
Alter.net (belonged to MCI last I knew) and then to Google's network --
11 hops through 3 networks.

Pinging Google means I'm measuring the performance of ten routers,
Google's web server, and the wires in between.

So let's say I'm measuring loss between here and Google, and it's at
Alter.net. I call them and say "your network is dropping packets" and
they say "can I have your customer number?" If I call my provider
(Verizon) they refer me to their SLA (Service Level Agreement). This is
a consumer DSL line, so the SLA says "provisioned casually" which is
internet-speak for "we promise that it might work some of the time."

If you're trying to figure out the performance of your connection (and
diagnose/fix problems) you want to know what happens in the first few
hops. You want near zero packet loss and low latency and jitter, and
you can work with someone you pay if there is an issue.

Beyond that, you can only hope.

Speaking as someone who ran an ISP for a couple of decades, I'm most
interested in the first router past my facility. Looking at the
traceroute to Google, the 1st is my local router, 4th hop answers ping,
the 5th doesn't respond to pings at all, and the 6th belongs to someone
other than Verizon. I'd ping the 2nd or 4th.

Does that help?

73 -- Lynn

P.S. I'm not a big fan of Google, but the same applies to MSN/Microsoft,
Yahoo!, or any other well-known site that is likely to be up at all times.

On 7/26/2014 3:37 AM, Mike va3mw wrote:

> Huh?
>
>> On Jul 25, 2014, at 12:43 PM, "Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> If you're going to ping something, do a traceroute and ping a router a few hops into your provider's network, or ping something like your provider's web server.
>>
>> When you choose to ping something like Google, it tells you about your provider's network up to the first place they can get rid of your packets, and every other network up to the Google server.
>>
>> The reason you want to look at something close is that you can either control it yourself, or you can complain about it to someone you pay. When you ping Google, your provider's SLA will carefully explain that they don't control the whole internet, and aren't responsible for anything beyond their own network.
>>
>> 73 -- Lynn
>>
>>> On 7/25/2014 8:02 AM, W5UXH wrote:
>>> But if not one could still use it to track
>>> problems that are at the first few hops by monitoring other servers like
>>> google etc.
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to [hidden email]
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

rgconner

Re: How reliable an internet connection is needed for A K3 remote to work well?

TCP/IP insures delivery, not performance. It is a mesh, not a point to point connection

Every router along the way is subject to congestion and packets can take different path if conditions warrant. There is no way to control the path once it is past gear in your control.
You could go over a top tier backbone, or you could go over Bob’s Ammo Bunker and Internet Service.

On Jul 26, 2014, at 10:40 AM, Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Mike,
>
> Think of it as tuning up on top of an existing QSO. You're using Google's bandwidth, but not in any way that supports Google.
>
> If lots of people "tune up" on top of Google, they have to address the unwanted traffic, or throw money at the problem (buy more bandwidth).
>
> Courtesy suggest that you can dial off a bit, and still "tune" just fine.
>
> A traceroute from my workstation goes through Verizon DSL, through Alter.net (belonged to MCI last I knew) and then to Google's network -- 11 hops through 3 networks.
>
> Pinging Google means I'm measuring the performance of ten routers, Google's web server, and the wires in between.
>
> So let's say I'm measuring loss between here and Google, and it's at Alter.net. I call them and say "your network is dropping packets" and they say "can I have your customer number?" If I call my provider (Verizon) they refer me to their SLA (Service Level Agreement). This is a consumer DSL line, so the SLA says "provisioned casually" which is internet-speak for "we promise that it might work some of the time."
>
> If you're trying to figure out the performance of your connection (and diagnose/fix problems) you want to know what happens in the first few hops. You want near zero packet loss and low latency and jitter, and you can work with someone you pay if there is an issue.
>
> Beyond that, you can only hope.
>
> Speaking as someone who ran an ISP for a couple of decades, I'm most interested in the first router past my facility. Looking at the traceroute to Google, the 1st is my local router, 4th hop answers ping, the 5th doesn't respond to pings at all, and the 6th belongs to someone other than Verizon. I'd ping the 2nd or 4th.
>
> Does that help?
>
> 73 -- Lynn

Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT

Re: How reliable an internet connection is needed for A K3 remote to work well?

Remember that we're talking UDP, not TCP, so it's not actually a connection.

.... and the theory is that IP networks are a mesh, but it often doesn't
behave like a mesh, and least in any positive way.

Good networks cost more than cheezy ones, but many of us find it hard to
justify $200+ month. Level(3) doesn't sell residential DSL.

73 -- Lynn

On 7/26/2014 3:07 PM, Russell Conner wrote:
> TCP/IP insures delivery, not performance. It is a mesh, not a point to point connection

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Bob Snyder

Re: How reliable an internet connection is needed for A K3 remote to work well?

In reply to this post by W5UXH

On Jul 25, 2014, at 5:02 PM, W5UXH <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Almost all of my packet loss is at hop #2 which is the first node past my
> router.

But are you seeing that packet loss reflected on every hop past that point? ISP routers are often configured to rate-limit or block responses to ping and traceroute requests since both require the router to actually process the packet with their CPU rather than simply forward the packets which is done via specialized hardware ASICs. If you see packet loss at one hop but you don’t see similar packet loss on every hop from that hop on, chances are you’re running into rate limiting or blocking and it’s not impacting your actual packet forwarding.

This is also a reason why Lynn’s suggestion to pick a local ISP router may work they way you’d want either.

73,
Bob N2KGO
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT

Re: How reliable an internet connection is needed for A K3 remote to work well?

On 7/29/2014 3:47 AM, Bob Snyder wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2014, at 5:02 PM, W5UXH<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> >Almost all of my packet loss is at hop #2 which is the first node past my
>> >router.
> But are you seeing that packet loss reflected on every hop past that point?
I'm not going to disagree with Bob, he's right, I've just not seen pings
and traceroute limited on internal routers very often, mostly on routers
at the edge of an ISPs network.

What's between Hop #1 and Hop #2? A wire that is unique to Chuck's
connection -- the wire from him to his ISP (and "wire" could be cable).

This is a great example of why I said don't ping something too far away:
if that wire is a little bit flaky, it'll show a lot of packet loss.

No wire has a zero error rate, so an occasional dropped packet is no big
deal, but if it's more than about 1% I'd be concerned.

73 -- Lynn
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]