• To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:

    Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.

    If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.

    To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.

    The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.

    For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).

    This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.

Linked capacity plus not working

Status
Not open for further replies.

N1GTL

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Messages
903
Location
CT
I am working on a LCP system. The system has 4 sites with one MTR3000 at each site. The three peer repeaters are working perfectly. No data will go to or come from the master repeater. I have checked and rechecked ip numbers, UDP forwarding but nothing is letting all 4 repeaters come up. I have switched cabled and routers. The problem is following the master. The lasted firmware is installed.

I am testing this on the bench. 4 routers with 10.0.0.x WAN addresses each going to a switch.
Master 192.168.1.101 UDP 50010
Peer 192.168.2.102 UDP 50020
Peer 192.168.3.103 UDP 50030
Peer 192.168.4.104 UDP 50040

All port forwarding it in place. If I connect RDAC to the switch and point it at the master, 10.0.0.1, it reports back information on all 4 repeaters. So in know there is some connectivity. I can ping each router (10.0.0.x) when plugged into the switch.

The master repeater will act as a stand alone and the three peers work great together.

Does anyone who has actually set one of these systems up have any thoughts?

Jim
 

rescue161

KE4FHH
Database Admin
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
3,214
Location
Hubert, NC
I'm not familiar with this type of setup, but why would the 3rd set in the IP change? 192.168.X.101
 

radioman2001

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,869
Location
New York North Carolina and all points in between
Doesn't look like you have the IP range set properly. I am no TCPIP expert, but I know that you won't be able to connect computers to one another with a range setup like that. Keep the IP range within the last octet set EG: 192.168.1.1 to 255. That might get them to talk to one another.
Also isn't 10.10.10.xx series an in house range like 169.xx series not external?
Reading more are the slave repeaters set to DHCP, since you can ping the router, we know they can talk to one another,but if you can't ping the salves you don't have connectivity. The router has to internally set up a table (DHCP) with the slaves IP which it then translates to the outside world and vice versa.
 

N1GTL

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Messages
903
Location
CT
This is a 4 site system. Each site has its own subnet. In the repeater programming, you set a site ID (1, 2, 3 and 4). then you set each repeater to its own radio id (11,12,13,14).

The repeaters are not just plugged into a switch. There is a router between each. 4 repeaters, 4 routers. If all 4 repeaters were plugged into the same switch, then yes, they would all need to be 192.168.1.x to see each other. Because routers are installed, the LAN sides of each individual router is 192.168.1.x, 192.168.2.x, 192.168.3.x and 192.168.4.x. The WAN sides of the routers are 10.0.0.x/16so they are all on the same subnet. If I connect my laptop to the switch and assign it 10.0.0.5, I can ping all of the router WAN addresses and I can ping all of the repeaters.

If I use RDAC and point it to 10.0.0.1, which is set up as the master, it will find the master as well as the 3 peers reporting to it. All have different UDP ports per Motorola documentation and all port forwarding is in place.
 

Firebuff880

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
397
Location
Boynton Beach, FL
So first off be sure your netmasks are correct --

192.168.x.y needs to /24 or 255.255.255.0 So that x your Site identifier is separate sub nets.

10.0.0.x should also be /24 so that it's one subnet you said /16 so only the 10.0 is unique, but in this small segment that should be fine.

Then you need Routes for each router to pount to the next hop to reach the specific IP Subnets.

PM me if you want to talk off line -

=================

PS: Some said these are private IP s and in fact they are all under RFC-1918 standards. So depending on what the WAN is you may have to make changes to the network architectural.
 

jim202

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2002
Messages
2,670
Location
New Orleans region
So first off be sure your netmasks are correct --

192.168.x.y needs to /24 or 255.255.255.0 So that x your Site identifier is separate sub nets.

10.0.0.x should also be /24 so that it's one subnet you said /16 so only the 10.0 is unique, but in this small segment that should be fine.

Then you need Routes for each router to pount to the next hop to reach the specific IP Subnets.

PM me if you want to talk off line -

=================

PS: Some said these are private IP s and in fact they are all under RFC-1918 standards. So depending on what the WAN is you may have to make changes to the network architectural.

Pay attention to what Firebuff is saying. Your problem is probably in the way you have your routers set up. You were not very detailed in trying to describe just how you set up the 4 routers.
 

N1GTL

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Messages
903
Location
CT
Pay attention to what Firebuff is saying. Your problem is probably in the way you have your routers set up. You were not very detailed in trying to describe just how you set up the 4 routers.
The subnet masks are fine as /16. To put that to rest as being the issue, I just reprogrammed all the routers to use 255.255.255.0. Nothing changed. Repeaters B, C and D all communicate. Repeater A does not.

I have the outside WAN interfaces on the routers as:

REPEATER A (MASTER) - 10.0.0.1
REPEATER B (PEER) - 10.0.0.2
REPEATER C (PEER) - 10.0.0.3
REPEATER D (PEER) - 10.0.0.4

All connect to a single, unmanaged, non-LVAN switch. When I connect a computer to the switch and use RDAC, it connects to the MASTER. RDAC then reports the status of the MASTER as well as the status of all the PEERS. Based on this, I know that the network routing is in place correctly.

Also, when I pull the plug on the MASTER, the system continues working with repeaters B, C and D. The only way they learn about each others existence is when the MASTER reports back to them.

REPEATER PROGRAMMING:
REPEATER A set as MASTER
192.168.1.101/24
UDP 50010

REPEATER B - PEER
192.168.2.102/24
UDP 50020

REPEATER C - PEER
192.168.3.103/24
UDP 50030

REPEATER C - PEER
192.168.4.104
UDP 50040

All respective UDP ports in the routers are forwarded to their respective repeaters.

All peers point to the MASTER as 10.0.0.1, UDP 50010.

All rest IP Numbers on the individual repeaters are set to 192.168.x.200. Rest UDP ports are set to 5500x where x = site number.

This configuration follows /\/\'s LCP configuration guide.
 

sfd119

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2009
Messages
1,743
In your Cisco router where A is setup, does it have routes all setup for each router? Can you turn off all the firewalls to check?

Why do all the UDPs have to be different if your IPs are?
 

N1GTL

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Messages
903
Location
CT
In your Cisco router where A is setup, does it have routes all setup for each router? Can you turn off all the firewalls to check?

Why do all the UDPs have to be different if your IPs are?
On a Capacity Plus system, all UDP's are the same, 50000 by default. With Linked Capacity Plus, /\/\ calls for them all to be different. I am merely following their instructions.

All the routes are correct. I can plug a laptop into each router, and get to the WAN side of all the other routers. Likewise, I can plug into the switch that is joining the 10.0.0.x network, and get to each of the routers.

I also disabled all firewalls, set the routers to disable all packet filtering and I even put all the repeater IP Addresses in as a DMZ in the routers. Nothing should be getting blocked.
 

Firebuff880

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
397
Location
Boynton Beach, FL
I have the outside WAN interfaces on the routers as:

REPEATER A (MASTER) - 10.0.0.1
REPEATER B (PEER) - 10.0.0.2
REPEATER C (PEER) - 10.0.0.3
REPEATER D (PEER) - 10.0.0.4


REPEATER PROGRAMMING:
REPEATER A set as MASTER
192.168.1.101/24
UDP 50010

All peers point to the MASTER as 10.0.0.1, UDP 50010.
Why do your peers point to the WAN address of the router as the Master -- I would expect to see this as 192.168.1.101 unless you have some NAT mapping or other network (back) magic somewhere..
 

N1GTL

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Messages
903
Location
CT
Why do your peers point to the WAN address of the router as the Master -- I would expect to see this as 192.168.1.101 unless you have some NAT mapping or other network (back) magic somewhere..
Because the peers are outside the network of the master. I am testing this on the bench now. In the real world, these repeaters will not be using 10.0.0.x. Let's put them on the Internet:

REPEATER A 192.168.1.101 (Master) in Boston, 64.252.34.22

REPEATER B 192.168.2.102 (Peer) in New York, 71.234.55.234

REPEATER C 192.168.3.103 (Peer) in Chicago, 32.54.132.65

REPEATER D 192.168.4.104 (Peer) in Dallas, 99.234.56.201

I could not put the master IP Address of 192.168.1.101 in the peer repeaters. They would not find the master. The outside interface address of 64.252.34.22 needs to be put in each of the peers directing it to the master. In the router in Boston, I am forwarding UDP 50010 to 192.168.1.101
 

Firebuff880

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
397
Location
Boynton Beach, FL
That only works if you have Network Address Translation 1-1 or Port Mapping turned on in your routers..

OR you need to define Virtual Private Network Tunnels to pass all the 192 traffic between the sites behind the routers.

I would suggest you back away from the hardware and lay out your network topology map first, an then get back into the Motorola gear..

=====
 

KC2YSI

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 16, 2011
Messages
130
Location
Nesconset, NY
I'm assuming you setup the routes in each firewall to pass the UDP port thru from the WAN address to the local IP address of each repeater. If you run wireshark on the LAN side of each router, are you seeing network traffic trying to get to the repeater?
 

N1GTL

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Messages
903
Location
CT
That only works if you have Network Address Translation 1-1 or Port Mapping turned on in your routers..

OR you need to define Virtual Private Network Tunnels to pass all the 192 traffic between the sites behind the routers.

I would suggest you back away from the hardware and lay out your network topology map first, an then get back into the Motorola gear..

=====
I am using NAT. I will agree I have a network issue.

A problem with using LCP is the sites cannot be on the same subnet so a VPN putting them all on 192.168.1.x is not an option. Big M documentation says each site must be behind its own router. When I first tried setting it up, I used .1 .2 .3 and .4 and plugged them into the same switch on the bench. The repeaters randomly started rebooting themselves non-stop.

I did look at wire shark and on each router I see activity from the other routers with the exception on the master router. There was no activity from the network of the 3 peers.

I am bringing another router in tomorrow. Perhaps I have a compatibility issue.
 

KC2YSI

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 16, 2011
Messages
130
Location
Nesconset, NY
Unfortunately, LCP is very picky on the routers that you use, especially with the master site. There is 2 routers (1 Linksys, 1 Cisco) that Motorola recommends. I have never had any luck with routers other than the ones recommended. The reboot issue sounds familiar though, are you sure you have the latest firmware on those repeaters?
 

N1GTL

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Messages
903
Location
CT
My old router was shot....smelled like burning electronics when I plugged it in.

I did speak with someone who set one of these systems up. Motorola documentation for setting LCP up references the HP MSR 20-20. Apparently there are a limited number of routers that will work with the master repeater. I am going to try to get one and give it a test.

More to follow...
 

N1GTL

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Messages
903
Location
CT
Unfortunately, LCP is very picky on the routers that you use, especially with the master site. There is 2 routers (1 Linksys, 1 Cisco) that Motorola recommends. I have never had any luck with routers other than the ones recommended. The reboot issue sounds familiar though, are you sure you have the latest firmware on those repeaters?
Yes, the firmware is up to date.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top