[OZAPRS] IGATEs

Sun Mar 13 08:09:13 EST 2005

Hi Bob,

We don't have a problem here with the 'old ways' of using paths for a few
reasons.

1) 98% of the digipeaters here are running UIDIGI which deal with dupes on
RELAY, WIDE & TRACE.

2) The total number of APRS stations for Australia & New Zealand combined
is
approx 216. For an area that is bigger than the USA

3) The total RF traffic at the busiest times in high APRS density areas is
about 70% of channel capacity.

3) The networks are frequency split in a big way in New Zealand and to a
lesser extent in Australia which inherently protects them from the Ego
Operator with WIDE7-7 from interstate state.

May be one day some of this will change. Then we will have a proven path
to
follow. Thanks Bob.

Cheers
Richard.
VK3JFK

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ozaprs-bounces at marconi.ics.mq.edu.au [mailto:ozaprs-
> bounces at marconi.ics.mq.edu.au] On Behalf Of Robert Bruninga
> Sent: Friday, 11 March 2005 1:23 AM
> To: wavetel at iname.com; vk4tec at tech-software.net
> Cc: ozaprs at marconi.ics.mq.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [OZAPRS] IGATEs
> 
> I am not following this thread at all, so forgive these
> coments if they are all wrong.  But ingeneral, after 12 years
> of APRS backwards compatiblity with old legacy type
> innefficient paths, we are finally deciding to abandon
> these confusing hodge-podge of paths down to a single
> receommendation of using WIDEn-N.  RELAY will still
> be supported, but not encouraged for routine work.
> This means there wont be any WIDE, TRACE, TRACEn-N
> or SS paths.  WIDEn-N will now do the same as TRACEn-N
> used to do.  And when all else fails, RELAY will work...  \
> 
> Down under, you may choose to keep wide, until  your
> networks get saturated with dupes.  I just want to make
> sure though that you dont loose sight of where we are
> headed in the long run.   Thanks, Bob, WB4APR
> 
> >>> "Tony Hunt" <wavetel at iname.com> 3/10/05 4:11:07 AM >>>
> Hi Andrew .. Ok your comparing the Ui-Digi to a stand alone TNC as a
> Digi ..
> Fair enough .. I cant think of too many real situations where the dupe
> checking is a real issue except these ..
> 
> 1: By nature of the beast most barfoot TNCs can only have one alias and
> one
> home callsign.. I guess you could set it up with a alias of RELAY and
> a
> MYcall of WIDE but you probably wouldnt.. If you did and you had a
> problem
> with it then its only you to blame.. It would get out of hand if folks
> used
> a path of RELAY,WIDE
> 
> 2 So if a mobile used a path of RELAY,WIDE and you had the TNC setup
> with a
> alias of RELAY and a proper callsign on the Mycall it would respond to
> the
> RELAY but not the WIDE. If a station was beaconing too often then there
> is
> of course no dupe checking but shouldnt you talk to him about his
> beacon
> timing instead of relying on dupe checking ? When it sees other digis
> repeat
> the frame even without callsign replacment (like itself)  it wont do
> anything with it either as the digi flag has been set on the frame
> signified
> by the RELAY*,WIDE or CALLSIGN*,WIDE
> 
> 3 If you set up the TNC with a alias of WIDE and stations used
> WIDE,WIDE as
> a path then you will have a real problem.. It will digi the first and
> second
> WIDE/WIDES if it hears them..
> 
> Andrew in regards to frame collisions ..
> Have you looked at the Dwait command on older TNCs ? This was used on
> older
> firmware prior to Frack which later became a norm even with UI frame
> digipeating ..
> 
> Anyway i think we agree basically..  I sometimes leave a TNC on here
> with a
> radio and RELAY as an alias if I switch all the computers off and go on
> hols
> maybee but not as a rule very often as its not the best situation..
> 
> Tony VK5AH
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Rich (VK4TEC)" <vk4tec at tech-software.net>
> To: "Tony Hunt" <wavetel at iname.com>
> Cc: "Ozaprs at Marconi.Ics.Mq.Edu.Au" <ozaprs at marconi.ics.mq.edu.au>
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 6:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [OZAPRS] IGATEs
> 
> 
> > Ur standard TNC with an alias does NOT support dupe checking
> >
> > This is what is in the UI-DIGI firmware in the eprom.
> >
> > I have played with all the TNC commands until I am blue in the face
> >
> > Persist slottime etc
> >
> > And in the end the UI-DIGI firmware wins hands down.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 22:23 +1030, Tony Hunt wrote:
> > > Comments ?? Yes .. Best points were ..
> > >
> > > > Common sense ?
> > >
> > > Not sure why this would be any different to any other traffic but
> if
> your
> > > running a satgate thats not linked to the Net its a bit sad
> > > > + IGATING from RF to NET is good for satgates
> > >
> > > Collisions are often a result of settings and or radio/antenna
> faults
> TNC
> > > alignment. Blaming it on "non ui-digi
> > >          tnc's" seems a bit obscure..
> > > > + UI-DIGI or no digi, I have seen some horrible collisions with
> non
> > > ui-digi
> > > > tnc's
> > >
> > >
> > > One final word..
> > > Be careful of making blanket rules that assume your own local
> enviroment
> is
> > > the same as everybody elses.
> > > If we all lived the same lives we would be pretty boring folks..
> > >
> > > Tony Hunt VK5AH
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Andrew Rich" <vk4tec at tech-software.net>
> > > To: "Ozaprs at Marconi.Ics.Mq.Edu.Au" <ozaprs at marconi.ics.mq.edu.au>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 12:44 AM
> > > Subject: [OZAPRS] IGATEs
> > >
> > >
> > > > I would like to throw this into the ring.
> > > >
> > > > + IGATING is generally a bad thing back to RF
> > > > + IGATING to RF is good for messages TO mobiles (eg D700)
> > > > + A model of RELAY,WIDE into an IGATE sounds good
> > > > + UI-DIGI or no digi, I have seen some horrible collisions with
> non
> > > ui-digi
> > > > tnc's
> > > > + HF traffic path should be treated with respect and given the
> best
> chance
> > > > to get through
> > > > + IGATING from RF to NET is good for satgates
> > > > + Limited INET to RF Igate testing should be allowed but only
> for
> trying
> > > it
> > > > out
> > > > + The RF environment is just that for RF signals and should not
> be
> swamped
> > > > by INET to RF traffic
> > > >
> > > > Comments ?
> > > >
> > > > Common sense ?
> > > >
> > > > Andrew VK4TEC
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > ozaprs mailing list
> > > > ozaprs at marconi.ics.mq.edu.au
> > > > http://marconi.ics.mq.edu.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ozaprs mailing list
> ozaprs at marconi.ics.mq.edu.au
> http://marconi.ics.mq.edu.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs
> _______________________________________________
> ozaprs mailing list
> ozaprs at marconi.ics.mq.edu.au
> http://marconi.ics.mq.edu.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs

_______________________________________________
ozaprs mailing list
ozaprs at marconi.ics.mq.edu.au
http://marconi.ics.mq.edu.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs