[OZAPRS] Are 4 x iGates in Sydney too many? (Jason Ball)
vk2him at gmail.com
Fri May 23 12:13:41 EST 2014
It seems my original point has been mis-understood.
There is no question that the demise of 2US has left a number of large black
holes - the way to fix that is to add more Digipeaters or put one in a high
location similar to 2US.
My point is iGATE related only, not RF .. we have at least 4 x iGates in
Sydney - if you take a look at the packets they send to the internet you may
be surprised that they all seem to be sending the same beacons to the server
with slight TX propagation delays as the packets bounce around.
I'm asking because I have run the Illawarra iGate for the last 6 years and
I've noticed lately I may as well not bother since any Wollongong/Illawarra
packets are sent to the server by my iGate first, but since 2AMW-1
rebroadcasts them every iGate in Sydney/Newcastle hears 2AMW-1 and resends
to the internet which makes the majority of the iGates redundant and does
nothing but add extra traffic to the servers.
The Sydney area used to have some control to ensure duplicate iGates and
Digipeaters were avoided - it seems to have turned into a free-for-all more
is better approach?
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 11:53:03 +1000
From: Jason Ball <jason at ball.net>
To: Joshua Mesilane <josh at zindello.com.au>
Cc: Australian APRS Users <ozaprs at aprs.net.au>
Subject: Re: [OZAPRS] Are 4 x iGates in Sydney too many?
<CAOGCNM5pQcxuDKkX1+qVaEcBsZ=dzjUL2J+=KFExwAPFw5+s+A at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Why run a digi and consume more of the bandwidth when an igate would suffice
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Mesilane
<josh at zindello.com.au>wrote:
> Rather than putting up another IGate, wouldn't it make more sense to
> run a fill-in digi. Are you within hearing range of another IGate, if
> you are you'd probably be better off running a Digi
> josh at zindello.com.au
More information about the OZAPRS