[OZAPRS] Are 4 x iGates in Sydney too many? (Jason Ball)

[Joshua Mesilane]

This is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier.

When it comes to enhancing the network, more IGates that can hear each
other is NOT the resolution to black-spots. The resolution is to place
strategically (or as strategically as you can make it) digipeaters around
the network instead of IGate which will just re-broadcast the traffic that
the other IGates are shoving on the APRS-IS network.

Additional IGates should ONLY be added if there is a specific area where
the PATH of transmissions is running out before it can reach an IGate (Eg,
a Digipeater in the middle of nowhere that can't reach an existing IGate,
would benefit from having an IGate within it's listening range), or if a
packet needs to traverse more than 2 digipeaters before hitting an IGate
then an additional IGate would benefit.

RX Only IGates cause more problems than they solve also, as the user won't
know that they're being heard as they'll get no response on their radio,
and any messages that use that IGate to get on to the APRS-IS network will
try and return via that RX Only IGate and never make it onto the RF network.

Just throwing up an IGate "Because you can't be heard in an area" will
cause more problems than good. Stick up a Digipeater. If you need a radio
I'm happy to donate some FM-900s I have spare at home (How many do you
want, I have a pile of them) programmed for 145.175 if you need them.



---
VK3XJM
0416039082
josh at zindello.com.au
http://www.zindello.com.au/


On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Ian Mills <vk2him at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
>
> Thanks
> Ian vk2him
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> 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?
> Message-ID:
>         <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
> >
> >
> > ---
> > VK3XJM
> > 0416039082
> > josh at zindello.com.au
> > http://www.zindello.com.au/
> >
> *************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> OZAPRS mailing list
> OZAPRS at aprs.net.au
> http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aprs.net.au/pipermail/ozaprs/attachments/20140523/b7a086b2/attachment-0001.html>