wfview is amazing! It now works remotely with Starlink, which originally blocked it with CGNAT. The solution was to install free “tailscale” a VPN/overlay app https://tailscale.com , and have the rig recognized on a tailscale subnet. I could not get the tailscale app to forward udp ports necessary to remotely operate my IC-7760. The current solution is to script iptables forwarding rules for ports 50001-3 to the fixed ip address of the rig. A masquerade rule completes two-way communication, so there we have a remote rig operating with Starlink. Happy to share the script, redacted for personal detail, if there is interest.
To operate remotely, it seems that wfview can be used locally with the rig, and access remotely by VPN, or only the rig can be access by VPN, and wfview runs with the remote operator. Both work, so which is best?
wfview local to remote rig: high speed connection possible with best waterfall and wfv features, remote desktop and sound forwarding also needed.
wfview with operator of remote rig: better user interaction, but more attention needed for wfview latency settings and wide fast waterfalls may need to be trimmed to narrower and slower depending on connection speed and quality. Starlink latency is notoriously variable, ranging here from 50ms to nearly 400ms and flitting to anywhere between, but the connection remains.
In short, wfview is wonderful, even with Starlink. The audio adaptive filtering is a huge improvement to the audio even from a quality radio. I don’t know why I bought my pricey hardware audio processors; they work, but maybe no better than wfview,
Wow this is excellent news. I’m sure I’m not the only one interested in the details. I have often thought of posting a remote HF rig out in the “middle of nowhere”, accessed over starlink. I think it’s a natural fit. Put the radio where there is room for a big antenna and hopefully where the EMI is quiet. Operate from your office, at work, or a retirement home or wherever you wish.
If you can redact the personal details and stick it on github I think that would be great.
Here, I am using a cable modem and I run a WireGuard VPN server. This works well for me; I can report that all the rigs here (IC-7610, IC-9700, TS-890) work significantly better under the VPN. I also implemented remote power control, but under the VPN the radios have been rock solid and haven’t needed it for any reliability reasons.
Tailscale is high quality and uses WireGuard, it’s one of the VPNs that I use with my overly complicated network. I’m also interested in the configuration details.
Hello,
Thanks for the example of using Starlink for a VPN.
Tailscale seems to have good reviews, so I decided to give it a try.
Tailscale has a feature called “subnet routes.”
Using this feature, you can connect to your home network from outside.
Procedure
Enable “subnet routes” on the network where the radio you’ll be using remotely is running (e.g., 192.168.1.0/24).
$ sudo tailscale set --advertise-routes=192.168.1.0/24
Enable “subnet routes” in the Tailscale web management interface.
Click the three dots at the far right of the device name and select “Edit route settings.” The 192.168.1.0/24 you just configured should be displayed; check the box next to it and save.
Verify from the remote machine (to the PC that responds to the ping)
ping 192.168.1.1
If you receive a ping response, the network connection is complete.
Please run wfview.
Since you are connected to your home network, there is no need to change the wfview settings.
How to configure settings for each OS is, see:
To Johnh: Please verify that it works with Starlink.
*Note: The “subnet routes” feature does not currently work properly on Windows.
*Note: I do not own a Mac, so I cannot confirm its behavior.